Year 18 | 09 January 2021

RANDOM MUSINGS
THE RECALL BROUGHT OUT THE WORST IN US
Anonymous | Guest Contributor

When discussing the proposed recall of Minister of Culture Swifty I was about to type something in response to a fellow legislator; then I stopped myself. I read my message out loud and thought about how it would make Swifty feel. I tend remembered the Golden Rule, one oft-repeated in both elementary schools and defender circles - treat others how you want to be treated.

The outcry at the lack of activity from the Cabinet stemming from the SPINN government review article, coupled with the proposal to recall Swifty due to his reaction to that article, has brought out the meanest environment the South Pacific has seen since the Timscade affair. Now, don't get me wrong - criticism is necessary, very necessary. I agree with the SPINN premise that the Cabinet is asleep at the wheel, and I feel that public pressure on the powers that be is a desperate need in a functioning democracy. However, I feel lie some on this debate brought it to a whole new level, including people who, frankly, I expect better from.

This has brought something to light for me that I now see has been fostered in the region for years - people taking politics to the extreme.

Yes, it's an online political simulator, so these things are to be expected. However, there is a difference between playing politics and just being flat out mean; and I think that that line has sadly been blurred. We're excusing behavior that would not otherwise be acceptable, painting it as "politics", "telling it like it is", or "being blunt". Eventually that takes a toll on people; not players, but people. Human beings.

I've experienced this for a while in my South Pacifican political career. While I've learned to roll with the punches and take criticism in stride, some attacks and behavior have left me doubting myself and my self-worth, making me think that I'm not up to par, like I don't belong here, and that's a serious problem.

For a while, NationStates Gameplay's toxicity has been a trope, a cliché, a punchline in the community. You either say it to get a laugh or say it seriously, the response being recognizing chuckles and a "yeah, that's how it is". But I really do think that on occasion we need to do some introspection and recognize the toxicity that is able to be fostered and normalized. Do I have a solution to this? No, no I don't. But the first step to recovery, as is always said in the movies, is admitting you have a problem, and I think that NationStates Gameplay, the South Pacific, and even myself do need to admit it: there is a toxicity problem in NationStates, and we need to work on eliminating it.

The author chose to remain anonymous.

The South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) is an independent news organisation established in 2003 with the goal of providing good, insightful and timely commentary on regional events for the citizens of the South Pacific. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. Content is published with the name of the author unless they explicitly request to remain anonymous. The SPINN is not associated with the Government of the South Pacific.

Reply

Comparing a frank discussion about the performance of a Minister (whose recall failed and remains Minister, by the way) to what happened during Timscade undermines the severe negative impact the Timscade episode had on our region, as well as the positive conclusions we drew from it (the creation of our Community Standards being the shining beacon of those efforts). The reference to NSGP culture is equally ridiculous. The point of the Community Standards is to separate the actions our in-universe characters take in the context of the game from the actions we take as players playing a game, and setting appropriate rules for the latter (the rules for the former being the laws of the region). The discussion about Swifty was aimed at his performance as a minister. If there was discussion that was aimed at the person rather than Swifty as the character within the TSP politics game, then those go beyond the game we play and become a community moderation issue. Nobody, neither Swifty nor anybody else, levied a complaint about the conduct there, and I frankly don't remember an aspect of the discussion that went beyond the aspect of the game.

What the article also doesn't mention is what toxicity. What was said? Why no examples? Just handwaving the word "toxicity" (which is severely overused anyway) cannot change anything. You can't name a thing but then not point out what thing you're even naming.

If anything, the preceding SPINN article and this recall motion was positive (and I had considered writing an article about that) — it held the Cabinet accountable, kicked it into gear, fostered frank but productive discussions about the expectations of Ministers, and in the end the region decided to keep Swifty for the remainder of the term. These were in-universe actions and in-universe discussions about in-universe topics, as it should be in this game we play. This article makes it out to be an attack on the actual player, the individual.

The article is fundamentally wrong for this simple reason: If there was "toxicity" toward Swifty, it would be actionable under the Community Standards. There were no reports being made about the discussion, nor did the multiple moderators taking part in those discussions deem anything as actionable. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

We can't even ask the author what was meant, because the author decided to remain anonymous. The author knew that this article, intentionally or not, is a hitpiece on the culture of the South Pacifican community. Shame on the author, and shame on SPINN for even publishing this.

Reply

I don't especially buy this article's argument. While the premise isn't terrible, necessarily, it doesn't provide the requisite evidence. Especially if you're going to throw out a claim like "toxicity" -- long used quite liberally as a pejorative label in the GP world -- you should want to have a bunch of specific examples to point out. This article would have been much better if it had done so.

That said, a lot of Roavin's response is pretty ridiculous.
 

The discussion about Swifty was aimed at his performance as a minister. If there was discussion that was aimed at the person rather than Swifty as the character within the TSP politics game, then those go beyond the game we play and become a community moderation issue. Nobody, neither Swifty nor anybody else, levied a complaint about the conduct there, and I frankly don't remember an aspect of the discussion that went beyond the aspect of the game.

Roavin has long argued that there exists on NS this kind of intense firewalling between OOC and IC matters. Everything is either solely an in-character issue, where everyone's character is talking to everyone else's character, or it's an out-of-character (sometimes labeled "meta") issue, where the people behind the game are involved. This distinction certainly exists in a few contexts: consider a gameplay statement ("we call out the devious actions of TBH", IC) or a moderation statement ("you are placed on timeout for 24 hours", OOC).

But in day-to-day conversation, this distinction does not exist. The lines are far, far blurrier than you make them out to be. Consider something Penguin wrote about Swifty during our discussion of his recall: "I am going to step in here and say that i tried VERY hard on a NUMBER of occasions to work with Swifty. I have given him more chances than i would just about anyone else." Is this an IC or an OOC statement? Some would say IC: she's talking about her interaction with Swifty as part of the government. But on the other hand, isn't Swifty's failure to work with her really due to his disposition and OOC choices about how to engage in NS? And why has she given him "more chances than... just about anyone else"? Elsewhere in the discussion, Glen seemed to think it was because Swifty is IRL younger than many other players. That seems OOC to me.

Why is it that we don't feel comfortable, in discussions like the recall, saying things like "Swifty is a negligent, incompetent, irresponsible minister who must not care about the region at all and is dangerously idiotic with security matters"? Nobody said anything like that during the discussion - despite the fact that it's not an unreasonable way to assess the purely IC parts of the situation. The reality is, though: we don't feel comfortable saying that because we know Swifty as a person. We like him, he's a good, well-intentioned guy. We also know he's newer to the region than others; some of us might even be resisting saying that because we know he's younger IRL.

What about if (not necessarily in the case of this recall, but in many other supposedly IC developments) someone leaves the discussion feeling really hurt because, say, they were trying their hardest to be a good IC player and nevertheless everybody is ragging on them? Is that feeling illegitimate, because obviously the discussion was IC? Should they just learn to accept it as part of playing the game? Is that not an OOC emotion?

The same kind of firewalling argument that Roavin's making would sound ridiculous in the context of a workplace, which is in fact very similar to TSP government. If your co-worker complains on Slack that you're irresponsible at work and they would like to see you fired, of course you're going to be really personally irritated, angry, sad, etc. It's an attack on your person. Maybe you'd even call it toxicity if it were repeated. So why, then, if your co-worker complains on Discord that you're irresponsible at work and they would like to see you recalled, it's all just about your character in a game?

In NationStates GP government, we treat each other far more like co-workers than like roleplayers. The whole idea of players having "character[s] within the TSP politics game" is ridiculous. I'm Somy whether I'm talking about RL politics or TSP politics. I hold the same values and am using the same brain. I'm not trying to play a character distinct from my real identity (a few NSers might, but the vast majority do not).

The reality is that we don't have a distinction between the "character" and the "player". Limiting our discussion/criticism to only someone's "NS actions" (working in the government, opinions on legislation, running military ops) is actually not our default setting, not our default assumption when someone talks to us. That's why, if you want to do so, you have to have mutual consent -- or at least mutual recognition of intent. If you say something harsh ("you're always trying to thwart me") and mean it to only apply to someone's NS actions, you have to make it clear that you mean it to only apply to someone's NS actions ("in government, you're always trying to thwart me"). Or you have to have previously established with that player that, in certain areas (e.g. the Legislators Lounge) when you talk together, you mean what you say to only apply to NS actions.

I agree with Roavin that I didn't notice any attacks in the recall discussion rising to the level of moderator action. But his oversimplification of all aspects of player interaction into either fully-in-character or fully-out-of-character is dangerous. It misrepresents reality and sidelines situations where OOC and IC are mixed together, or where one party experiences events as IC while the other experiences them as OOC. It can blind us to all but the most egregious behavior issues. I can only hope that, were Timscade to happen again, we would not initially brush it off as "just criticising your NS character" before backtracking far later, only when things get much worse and the reality becomes clear. Because, after all, that is what happened during Timscade. And that's what Roavin's conception of IC/OOC leads to.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply