+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: Toxicity (/thread-3714.html)
Toxicity - Tsunamy - 02-13-2016
Aiight — we need to open up a bit of a discussion here of what is and is not "toxic." This is in direct response to Awe's campaign thread, but I didn't want to continue the threadjacking.
"Toxic" is quickly becoming a disputed term. But I'd like to suggest that the toxic-ness is in the tone, rather than the content. I think most things should be fair game, as long as it's asked in a respectful manner.
Can we agree to have respectful, open discussions and not fling accusations?
RE: Toxicity - Cormac - 02-13-2016
(02-13-2016, 12:25 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Aiight — we need to open up a bit of a discussion here of what is and is not "toxic." This is in direct response to Awe's campaign thread, but I didn't want to continue the threadjacking.
"Toxic" is quickly becoming a disputed term. But I'd like to suggest that the toxic-ness is in the tone, rather than the content. I think most things should be fair game, as long as it's asked in a respectful manner.
Can we agree to have respectful, open discussions and not fling accusations?
Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple. I'll use an example from the thread in question to demonstrate why:
(02-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: ...
I don't think there is anything "legally dubious" about an attempt to overthrow the government. How can we trust you as Chair if while serving as Deputy Chair you stood by as the Assembly was stripped from its power and all but disbanded?
Kris may well see that as a fair and respectful, if tough, question. Meanwhile, while I'm not a mind reader and I can't say for certain whether he intended to be disrespectful or not, I don't read it as at all respectful. I see it as a backhanded accusation that Awe silently supported the coup, or at the very least that Awe has been politically disqualified from office for not being vocal enough against the coup. I see it as basically trying to associate Awe with the coup, even though Awe's only "crime" is not being vocal enough against it, and there was no actual participation in the coup. I see it as a politically opportunistic and politically motivated attack on Kris's friend's political opponent in this election, using a crisis to further their political ambitions. And I'm not shy about how I see it.
My concern is that if we approach toxicity as a matter of tone rather than content, we'll punish those who are more blunt and frankly honest in their tone while letting people who use a less harsh tone get away with continuing their opportunistic and self-centered smear campaigns against others. Some here are very good at couching their attacks in a tone that sounds respectful and civil, but the content of those attacks, when thought out, isn't at all respectful or civil. It isn't respectful or civil to essentially lump Awe in with a coup just for being silent, but not actually participating in the coup, no matter the tone of those accusations.
So to answer your question, no, I personally can't agree to that. I won't agree to be less blunt and harsh on Kris or anyone else while they're still continuing to attack other people, no matter their tone. Whether this approach is right or wrong, I believe in treating people in kind -- if they treat people with genuine respect, not only in tone but in content, I'm willing to do the same. But if they treat people with disrespect, if they try to smear them, and if they're doing it just to further themselves without any real regard for anyone else, I'm going to be blunt and, yes, harsh in my criticism of them for doing that. In short, I don't believe in turning the other cheek or taking the high road, I believe in returning a punch with a punch. I don't think it does anyone any good to let some get away with overbearing, disrespectful behavior for the sake of taking the high road or keeping the peace; it just enables them to go on with what they're doing unopposed.
That just isn't how I tick. I recognize that it's a pain for other people sometimes, and I don't like to make bystanders who don't like conflict uncomfortable. But I learned the uselessness of "turn the other cheek," "take the high road," and other such platitudes from a very young age. If you punch me, or a friend, or someone else who doesn't deserve it, expect to be punched back -- just as hard, if not harder. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. That's how I handle conflict.
But if they're willing to settle down and be respectful in both tone and content, so am I. That is how I tick.
RE: Toxicity - Kris Kringle - 02-13-2016
Cormac, I have no intention of ever going easy on people who were in government but did not condemn the coup. I genuinely don't believe Awesomiasa can be trusted with the keys to the Assembly if just a few days ago he accepted having this institution violated and dissolved. He was not any random citizen, he was Deputy Chair. I expect public officials to defend their respective institutions, especially in the face of something as serious as a coup.
I already said this in my other post, but I will rephrase it here. Most look at the Cabinet and see people with good intentions who made a mistake. I don't see that, no matter how hard I try. I only see people who took a 13-year-old government and dragged it through the mud before throwing it to the incinerator. I can't wrap my head around that. I wish I could let it become a bad memory, which would certainly make me more popular with so many of you, but that is not how I think. Likewise, what you see as defending an innocent bystander, I see as defending someone whose name was listed as Co-Chair of the illegal Constitutional Convention. I see it as defending someone who just betrayed the Assembly but now wants to be trusted with its keys. A coup is the single one crime that I can't bring myself to forgive as easily.
Just like the problem between the Cabinet and Admins, much of this current issue would be solved if people stopped talking past each other and instead talked to each other. I genuinely find it hard to assume the best of your intentions, if you keep assuming the worst of mine.
I already said this in my other post, but I will rephrase it here. Most look at the Cabinet and see people with good intentions who made a mistake. I don't see that, no matter how hard I try. I only see people who took a 13-year-old government and dragged it through the mud before throwing it to the incinerator. I can't wrap my head around that. I wish I could let it become a bad memory, which would certainly make me more popular with so many of you, but that is not how I think. Likewise, what you see as defending an innocent bystander, I see as defending someone whose name was listed as Co-Chair of the illegal Constitutional Convention. I see it as defending someone who just betrayed the Assembly but now wants to be trusted with its keys. A coup is the single one crime that I can't bring myself to forgive as easily.
Just like the problem between the Cabinet and Admins, much of this current issue would be solved if people stopped talking past each other and instead talked to each other. I genuinely find it hard to assume the best of your intentions, if you keep assuming the worst of mine.
RE: Toxicity - Unibot - 02-13-2016
Just to add Kring's thoughts, part of why I'm so "toxic" is that I feel like I've been attacked for ages in TSP and quite a lot of the attacks on TSP's democracy were targeted towards me and Glen. And I just haven't found this healing circle thing (truth and reconciliation) to .. well, help me...It seems like the region always wants the people hurt by these things to "mature" and it never wants anybody to pay their dues or even apologize except the people who were signaled out by these things. For one thing I've never received a proper apology from anybody involved in BLT (and I don't expect I'll ever get one.) TSP always talks a lot about how it's a community, but as a community it doesn't really support the people being kicked around; it's more like a frustrated parent telling their kids "just get along!" or "Mary tell your brother you're sorry for making him steal your crayon" - and in doing so it doesn't feel like a proper family intervention because it just bulldozes over the concerns of whichever person we think is most likely to accept a quiet resolution.
EDIT: I'll add I came out of retirement when I saw TSP was being couped and tried my hardest to help out; but all I've heard from the newly-minted TSP citizens (IE: Cormac) is how much I'm not a citizen. Meanwhile some of the coupers are practically being handed the key to the region as if they're some kind of heroes. It's bizarre and kind of sad.
RE: Toxicity - Cormac - 02-13-2016
(02-13-2016, 01:52 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Cormac, I have no intention of ever going easy on people who were in government but did not condemn the coup. I genuinely don't believe Awesomiasa can be trusted with the keys to the Assembly if just a few days ago he accepted having this institution violated and dissolved. He was not any random citizen, he was Deputy Chair. I expect public officials to defend their respective institutions, especially in the face of something as serious as a coup.
I already said this in my other post, but I will rephrase it here. Most look at the Cabinet and see people with good intentions who made a mistake. I don't see that, no matter how hard I try. I only see people who took a 13-year-old government and dragged it through the mud before throwing it to the incinerator. I can't wrap my head around that. I wish I could let it become a bad memory, which would certainly make me more popular with so many of you, but that is not how I think. Likewise, what you see as defending an innocent bystander, I see as defending someone whose name was listed as Co-Chair of the illegal Constitutional Convention. I see it as defending someone who just betrayed the Assembly but now wants to be trusted with its keys. A coup is the single one crime that I can't bring myself to forgive as easily.
I can even somewhat understand this position in regard to those who actively participated in the coup. I can't understand it toward someone who was just silent. That may not be the ideal response, but you have to consider that Awe liked people on both sides of this, and maybe that was just a little more important to Awe than vocally defending an RP government even if that government has existed for thirteen years. You have to understand that if Awe had acted, it would have been betrayal of someone either way -- either supporting the Cabinet and betraying the Coalition, or supporting the Coalition and betraying the Cabinet. Was silence the right choice? I don't know. But I can see why it's the choice that was made. It's hard to betray your friends in the context of a game that nearly everyone takes so personally, and when supporting either side would mean betraying friends on the other, sometimes silence is the best you can do.
I don't know for sure if this is actually what led to Awe's silence, but as someone who has been faced with the very crappy situation of betraying friends if I support either side in a conflict in this game, and having at times chosen to pick a side and at other times chosen neutrality, I could certainly understand if this is why Awe stayed silent. Can't you? That's not at all the same as taking the other side though. It just isn't.
(02-13-2016, 01:52 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Just like the problem between the Cabinet and Admins, much of this current issue would be solved if people stopped talking past each other and instead talked to each other. I genuinely find it hard to assume the best of your intentions, if you keep assuming the worst of mine.
And for me, it's hard to assume the best of your intentions if you keep assuming the worst of just about everyone's, including mine. Or perhaps more accurately, if you keep failing to see how someone you are angry with may have had good intentions even if you don't like the choices they made. I don't think it's so much that you're assuming the worst intentions as that you're just not considering possible good, or at least respectable if misguided, intentions.
There are many reasons someone could have involved themselves in the coup, or stayed silent, that are not the worst of reasons. I'm not going to pretend I was one of those people -- I wasn't, I had the wrong reasons, I admit that now and own up to it, and I'm committed to contributing within the Coalition's system and the upcoming convention to try to make up for that. But others might have involved themselves to try to influence the Cabinet toward moderation instead of toward the wholesale disruptive and destructive tactics that coups so often rely upon, and that many opportunists were no doubt urging Hileville to use. Still others may not have really approved of the coup, but believed it was here to stay, and decided it was in TSP's best interests to try to produce a constitution that would make the region a better place to be in the future. I'm not saying these were the right choices, but they're choices backed by intentions that you seem to be failing to consider.
I know how hard it can be to get past these issues. Whether we like it or not, most of us do take things that happen in this game at least somewhat personally. We get angry, sometimes we feel hurt, sometimes we feel betrayed even if we know it's a game and know we shouldn't feel that way. That is bound to happen in a game this socially complex. As hard as it can be to move on and forgive, take it from someone who navigated these same turbulent waters in Osiris: We really have to try harder. Not just you, specifically, but everyone in the community. Because if people don't move past these issues, if they don't get resolved and they instead continue to fester, the only thing the future holds is more feelings of betrayal, more hurt feelings, and more anger. I legitimately don't want to see TSP go down that road so I hope people will do the hard, but necessary thing, and try to let go, because the path that is easy right now won't be easy later.
I do get that I haven't helped this situation with my attitude, and as much as it isn't in my nature to back down for the sake of keeping the peace, I'll try harder to do that. I hope you and others will try harder too. If we don't all try harder, ugly situations like the recent coup are going to keep happening -- and becoming progressively uglier -- until one side wins and the other gives up and leaves. That's what happened in Osiris, and it's happened elsewhere in the past, and it leads to a lot of lasting hurt feelings and regrets. That is not an outcome I believe any of us want to see but we are the only ones who can make sure it doesn't happen. Nobody can do it for us.
RE: Toxicity - Kris Kringle - 02-13-2016
I guess the thing is the choice seems pretty easy to me. I can't understand not supporting the Coalition. I first got involved in this region by defending it from Milograd, so TSP and the Coalition are one and the same to me. It can and should change through the years, but always built upon, not thrown away. That is TSP to me: people building on top of that which others did and making it better, not discarding it like it meant nothing.
That is why I keep saying I can't buy the good intentions excuse when talking about coups. It goes contrary to what I see as TSP. It denies our very essence as a region: we make the big decisions together. It's not up to the Delegate. It's not up to the Cabinet. It's up to us as a people.
I mean, I would love to limit my activities to working for the Ministry of Regional Affairs and roleplaying at Bantam Harbour. That is what I enjoy and where I feel I make the most good. The only reason I am active in the Assembly is because these are changing times, and important decisions will be made, and even then I am certain that the Assembly is not what I enjoy doing. You put me in culture and roleplaying and I'll be happy, but I need to know this region will still be TSP.
On to the last two issues.
I really don't think it's fair that anyone who held executive office during the coup but failed to dissent should be running in this election. Maybe they will prove in the near future that they have honest intentions and have learned from their mistakes? Excellent. Let them participate in the following elections. But, I genuinely don't think we should vote in the people we just voted out, be that legally or morally. I respect those who feel differently, but I can't share their immediate forgiveness, and I plan to express that through my vote. I need a Cabinet that believes in this region, not one who tried to force change and disruption upon it.
As for you. It's no secret that I have very hostile feelings towards you. If you're here to soon leave in drama like the previous times, we are probably going to keep having problems, and that will probably lead to one of us making a very angry post denouncing the level of toxicity in the region. If you are here to be constructive and get to know what community we have beyond the Assembly*, if you are willing to be a positive force in this region, we might have a good chance, because I too want to be a positive force.But the first step is to know where each of us stands, why we have those positions, and understand that we will disagree at times, but that is no reason to kill each other.
* Because we do have a community beyond the Assembly. I know people see TSP and think we are in a state of constant drama. That is true for our regional government, but not for the other parts of our community. We have an awesome thing going at our RMB. We have very dedicated posters at the Hall of Spam. We have many creative roleplayers at Bantam Harbour, and even now we are holding a convention to improve our community there. TSP is much more than its government. I wish more people realised that.
That is why I keep saying I can't buy the good intentions excuse when talking about coups. It goes contrary to what I see as TSP. It denies our very essence as a region: we make the big decisions together. It's not up to the Delegate. It's not up to the Cabinet. It's up to us as a people.
I mean, I would love to limit my activities to working for the Ministry of Regional Affairs and roleplaying at Bantam Harbour. That is what I enjoy and where I feel I make the most good. The only reason I am active in the Assembly is because these are changing times, and important decisions will be made, and even then I am certain that the Assembly is not what I enjoy doing. You put me in culture and roleplaying and I'll be happy, but I need to know this region will still be TSP.
On to the last two issues.
I really don't think it's fair that anyone who held executive office during the coup but failed to dissent should be running in this election. Maybe they will prove in the near future that they have honest intentions and have learned from their mistakes? Excellent. Let them participate in the following elections. But, I genuinely don't think we should vote in the people we just voted out, be that legally or morally. I respect those who feel differently, but I can't share their immediate forgiveness, and I plan to express that through my vote. I need a Cabinet that believes in this region, not one who tried to force change and disruption upon it.
As for you. It's no secret that I have very hostile feelings towards you. If you're here to soon leave in drama like the previous times, we are probably going to keep having problems, and that will probably lead to one of us making a very angry post denouncing the level of toxicity in the region. If you are here to be constructive and get to know what community we have beyond the Assembly*, if you are willing to be a positive force in this region, we might have a good chance, because I too want to be a positive force.But the first step is to know where each of us stands, why we have those positions, and understand that we will disagree at times, but that is no reason to kill each other.
* Because we do have a community beyond the Assembly. I know people see TSP and think we are in a state of constant drama. That is true for our regional government, but not for the other parts of our community. We have an awesome thing going at our RMB. We have very dedicated posters at the Hall of Spam. We have many creative roleplayers at Bantam Harbour, and even now we are holding a convention to improve our community there. TSP is much more than its government. I wish more people realised that.
RE: Toxicity - Cormac - 02-13-2016
(02-13-2016, 03:35 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I guess the thing is the choice seems pretty easy to me. I can't understand not supporting the Coalition. I first got involved in this region by defending it from Milograd, so TSP and the Coalition are one and the same to me. It can and should change through the years, but always built upon, not thrown away. That is TSP to me: people building on top of that which others did and making it better, not discarding it like it meant nothing.
That is why I keep saying I can't buy the good intentions excuse when talking about coups. It goes contrary to what I see as TSP. It denies our very essence as a region: we make the big decisions together. It's not up to the Delegate. It's not up to the Cabinet. It's up to us as a people.
It isn't this easy for everyone though. For some, people are more important than abstractions like the Coalition or TSP as an entity. It wouldn't have been any easier on some people to betray Hileville and the rest of the Cabinet than it would have been to betray the Coalition and the people fighting for it. I don't know if Awe was one of those people, but I suspect so. Just because that choice would be easy for you doesn't make it easy for everyone, because not everyone is more committed to abstract concepts and entities than they are to the actual people they've befriended through this game. You don't have to agree with that, but you should at least be trying to make an honest effort to understand it.
(02-13-2016, 03:35 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I really don't think it's fair that anyone who held executive office during the coup but failed to dissent should be running in this election. Maybe they will prove in the near future that they have honest intentions and have learned from their mistakes? Excellent. Let them participate in the following elections. But, I genuinely don't think we should vote in the people we just voted out, be that legally or morally. I respect those who feel differently, but I can't share their immediate forgiveness, and I plan to express that through my vote. I need a Cabinet that believes in this region, not one who tried to force change and disruption upon it.
And others don't think it's fair that two admins who, through their behavior, caused so much disruption to the community, and made the Cabinet unanimously feel that a new forum was needed, should remain in their admin positions either. Those people see what you folks refuse to acknowledge, that you also played a role in this crisis. You may not have been the ones who acted illegally, but without your inappropriate actions, this crisis and its aftermath would not have happened.
I argued on the IRC channel yesterday that neither you nor Glen should lose your admin positions, because I didn't feel that was what's best for the community, in the same way that I don't feel mass purges from citizenship for participation in the coup are what's best for the community. You are making that case harder to make by insisting on retribution against not only those who participated in the coup, but also those who just stayed neutral. You are all making the case for moving on and not insisting that you all be tossed out of your admin positions harder by refusing to accept your role in this crisis. You've got to stop heaping all of the blame on others because their actions were illegal and yours weren't. Illegal or not, we would not be here, talking about this, if it hadn't been for your actions, because there would have been no forum move and no coup. If you can't accept responsibility for that, then there is very little hope of reconciliation.
(02-13-2016, 03:35 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: As for you. It's no secret that I have very hostile feelings towards you. If you're here to soon leave in drama like the previous times, we are probably going to keep having problems, and that will probably lead to one of us making a very angry post denouncing the level of toxicity in the region. If you are here to be constructive and get to know what community we have beyond the Assembly*, if you are willing to be a positive force in this region, we might have a good chance, because I too want to be a positive force.But the first step is to know where each of us stands, why we have those positions, and understand that we will disagree at times, but that is no reason to kill each other.
* Because we do have a community beyond the Assembly. I know people see TSP and think we are in a state of constant drama. That is true for our regional government, but not for the other parts of our community. We have an awesome thing going at our RMB. We have very dedicated posters at the Hall of Spam. We have many creative roleplayers at Bantam Harbour, and even now we are holding a convention to improve our community there. TSP is much more than its government. I wish more people realised that.
I'm not planning on going anywhere, but neither am I planning on getting deeply involved in spam games, roleplay, or things I've never involved myself in anywhere in NationStates to prove that I'm a positive force in this region. Just as you aren't actually interested in the Assembly and prefer those things, I am not interested in those things and prefer government. I started playing NationStates because it was a political simulation game and regional government has been my interest from day one, not spam games or RP. I enjoy legislating, I enjoy foreign affairs, I enjoy military gameplay, I enjoy the WA. And you know what? Those things can also be positive forces in a region, if you let them.
It is difficult to make regional government into a positive force in a region when you have people dismissing and criticizing people for being "gameplay politicians" because they don't like spam games or RPing, when "gameplay politician" essentially becomes a code word for opportunists who don't really care about the community. I'm interested in being a positive force here, but by participating in the things that interest me, not participating in the things that interest you and you feel should interest everyone. People have different interests and want to contribute to regions in different ways, and that, too, is something you really need to accept. That some prefer politics and government does not mean we care less about TSP than you do, it just means we would like to be able to enjoy participating in those things here as much as you enjoy participating in the activities you like.
RE: Toxicity - Sylvia Montresor - 02-13-2016
(02-13-2016, 03:35 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:I know people see TSP and think we are in a state of constant drama. That is true for our regional government, but not for the other parts of our community. We have an awesome thing going at our RMB. We have very dedicated posters at the Hall of Spam. We have many creative roleplayers at Bantam Harbour, and even now we are holding a convention to improve our community there. TSP is much more than its government. I wish more people realised that.
I believe this is an example of the "vocal minority" effect. The regional government is just one part of a multifaceted region, where many other parts are active and drama-free. However, the regional government is dramatic and loud. So, to the casual observer, the regional government seems to take up a much larger part of the region's activity than it actually does.
I'll only comment on that for now, because going through the thread thus far, my contributions would only read like a paraphrased version of what Cormac has stated.
RE: Toxicity - Belschaft - 02-13-2016
I don't think things are too bad, actually. Even the people who are arguing are at least doing so on substantive issues, rather than just insulting each other.
RE: Toxicity - Tsunamy - 02-13-2016
I'd like couple things out here — only tangentially related to toxicity and the discussion at hand, but important nonetheless.
First, I think this discussion is healthy — hard, but healthy. And needed.
Second, I wanted to comment on this part:
(02-13-2016, 12:58 AM)Cormac Wrote: I see it as a politically opportunistic and politically motivated attack on Kris's friend's political opponent in this election, using a crisis to further their political ambitions. And I'm not shy about how I see it.
I get this argument, but I don't think it really applies to this region. Just as the discussion on the NS forum mentioned political parties, I think we'd be hard pressed to find alliances like this in here. Some will say I'm blue-skying it, but I don't see Kris and Far as ride-or-die friends — any more than anyone else is friends. And, I'll be frank in that I've yet to understand how this assertion has gained so much traction.
And that goes on all sides — we make assumptions about each other based on who we agree it. I get it, but I think we need to make sure we don't roll into conspiracy theories.