|
Post by Wary on Apr 9, 2012 13:56:41 GMT -5
My thoughts? I think the change to casual just best reflects the change in culture.
---
My only lingering complaint is that there seems to be one particular person who did a lot of the things that hurt other people. Addressing it specifically has been HIGHLY discouraged, with basically the aura of the threat of "Play nice, or else" from those in charge. While I doubt anyone wants to intentionally bully said person, they're averse to even bringing it up because they don't want to face the wrath of the administration.
As such, I don't know if that's something that can be addressed publicly.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 9, 2012 15:06:29 GMT -5
My thoughts? I think the change to casual just best reflects the change in culture. --- My only lingering complaint is that there seems to be one particular person who did a lot of the things that hurt other people. Addressing it specifically has been HIGHLY discouraged, with basically the aura of the threat of "Play nice, or else" from those in charge. While I doubt anyone wants to intentionally bully said person, they're averse to even bringing it up because they don't want to face the wrath of the administration. As such, I don't know if that's something that can be addressed publicly. Two things: 1) not sure what you're talking about on the "change to casual." it appears to have changed away from that is what the original poster was saying. 2) The administration cares about the -how- of something being addressed. In the past, there has been a lot of bullying-like aspects, that appeared to be based a lot less off of hurt and more off of "I don't like what x is doing, so I will raise a fit and make them stop." There can be huge differences in approach. One can, in a respectful and courteous way, address that someone has hurt you and why you felt hurt and ask them to be more conscientious of that in the future. Hopefully said person will respect that. On the other hand, yelling at someone because of something they've done (regardless as to what it is) isn't allowed. The first is constructive, beneficial to parties, doesn't have to be a conflict, and focuses not on the person but the action. The second is destructive, antagonistic, causes the other person to get on the defensive, and makes it much more drama filled than necessary. It's usually best to phrase these discussions using "I statements" (I felt this way, I thought this, I had a distaste, etc) instead of "You statements" (You did this. You hurt me. You do things I don't like.) as well as focusing on trying to find 1) mutual understanding, 2) less value/opinion statements about what did take place and more non-judgmental factual ones (followed up by how you felt or took it or whatever), 3) focusing not on the person but the action that took place. Those can be hard to do... But could it be that the person that hurt people doesn't realize they did? Hasn't been aware that what they did hurt others? I don't think anyone wants to intentionally hurt others around here. But if the problems aren't addressed, no growth can be achieved. And if this is still an issue, has handling it privately really helped? Would it be more beneficial to handle it while tempers are cooled and with help from a team that wants to get these kinks worked out, so that no more personal issues have to spill out and get people in trouble?
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Apr 10, 2012 18:52:02 GMT -5
Those can be hard to do... But could it be that the person that hurt people doesn't realize they did? Hasn't been aware that what they did hurt others? I don't think anyone wants to intentionally hurt others around here. But if the problems aren't addressed, no growth can be achieved. And if this is still an issue, has handling it privately really helped? Would it be more beneficial to handle it while tempers are cooled and with help from a team that wants to get these kinks worked out, so that no more personal issues have to spill out and get people in trouble? I doubt we have any intentionally antagonistic forumer who frequents the Taco. It's not really a case of 'we have a bully on the loose', and not 'I dislike how Y does Z', but more of a case of some feeling hurt by the attitude another takes on. Since one does not stop their attitude, or alter it to be more respectful if messaged, the hurt continues. I'm sure that specific examples could be found, if you mean for how people feel hurt and by who...?
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 16, 2012 10:40:49 GMT -5
So I'm going to call something to the floor since gentle pushing and prodding hasn't helped or gotten the talk going.
Yesterday we had another issue with a couple people bickering again--this time (and a common issue) it appears to be on the details and depth of RP descriptions.
Obviously this is an ongoing problem and one of those things creating tension between people. So. What will it take to get this solved? What will it take to get a solution worked out here?
We know who Taco members are. We know that, for example from yesterday, Omni wants more details and Scrac gets annoyed by being bogged down in that. This is not a secret, it's already out there on a public thread. We know it gets to other people, such as Nat stepping in and helping to mediate. So please, without this being a "Beat-up-on-person X" can we discuss what is occurring, why it is occurring, and how to bridge the gaps between people?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 11:29:27 GMT -5
…To be fair, Scrac definitely isn't the only one who is annoyed with the needless nitpicking. That incident was just one of many examples where something that was supposed to be fun and simple was warped out of control into something that was user-unfriendly and extremely off-putting.
I don't want to say any more on the matter without running it by Zylaa first. More on this later.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 16, 2012 11:39:33 GMT -5
…To be fair, Scrac definitely isn't the only one who is annoyed with the needless nitpicking. That incident was just one of many examples where something that was supposed to be fun and simple was warped out of control into something that was user-unfriendly and extremely off-putting. I don't want to say any more on the matter without running it by Zylaa first. More on this later. Just a note on that last part, as I don't think this was brought up here. Zy has offered to help look at anyone's posts ahead of time (for those a little worried about getting in trouble still for saying something) and help work out any issues the post might have. Asking a mod to take a look at what you wanted to say is always okay, they can help you figure out how to say it to stay in the rules. I would be a terrible person to ask, though, as getting a response will be pretty delayed. But yes, this option is open to people as they want. EDIT - Now that I have more time, I will clarify. Let's go back to the example from yesterday (on the Hard Taco). Omni wants details on the fighting. Keeps not understanding what Scrac is trying to describe. As the back and forth continues, both get frustrated. Scrac snaps at Omni and says some Very Not Cool things. I am also aware that this is an ongoing issue and something that keeps being repeated--almost exactly like the pattern I just described. For the record, as a Mod Statement goes, it's a shame that no one was around to step in and put a stop to it. But what took place there is enough to get your heads knocked by the mods. It's precisely one of the issues we're trying to work out--why people cannot play well together. That conversation should have been taking place in PMs or somewhere private and not dragging drama into a public setting and saying rude and snide things to other members. Hands down, that is not allowed and very much rule breaking. But there's more to it than a simple "Scrac snapped." There's underlying reasons why it happened. And keeps happening. So, since this is an ongoing and repeated issue, what do we need to do to stop it from happening in the future and make sure we don't need to knock heads? (because we will; it's the job) What are the reasons here? What sets people off? I have a pretty good handle on the events, personalities involved, causes, etc with some ideas as to what will help and won't. But I want to hear what you all have to say on this matter. I want to see you discuss amongst yourselves, to talk to each other, so other Taco members understand what it is that takes place and sets them off. What it is that they and he and she and everyone needs to be aware of that they need to work on. We have an issue, we all know it, let's address it head on and find the solution. I'm pretty sure no one wants to keep knocking heads (or getting theirs knocked).
|
|
|
Post by Zylaa on Apr 16, 2012 13:50:40 GMT -5
I probably should've offered my services on this board directly, yes. >__> A minor addition to Stal's post: Celestial has also said specifically that she's happy to look over anyone's posts beforehand. If anyone feels more comfortable asking the help of a different mod, that's ok too!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 14:26:38 GMT -5
This is a Zylaa approved post.
---------
I don't know why the nitpicking happens. But I don't like it. Omni, since you tend to debate tiny details of interactions, I don't enjoy roleplaying with you.
The reason for the frustration is because the nitpicking makes stuff not fun anymore. I know people have repeatedly told you this, but you refuse to change and it comes across as you refusing to even recognize you are hurting people.
As I have said previously in this thread, multiple times… this sort of nitpicking sets me off. I avoid it all all costs, to the point of avoiding people who have a habit of indulging in it. However, if despite my best efforts this starts up between me and someone else, I will drop the interaction and leave the board. In rather an aggravated mood—I won't deny that—but I figure it's better to just turn my back and leave than get bitten by mods. If it starts up between other people, I will leave the board; I don't care to see that sort of thing going on. It's very off-putting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 15:06:06 GMT -5
Yeah, nitpicking isn't too big of a deal until it's taken to extremes, like it has been in the Taco. It's what I find most toxic about the place, honestly. Besides arguments over characters' fighting moves, I've seen philosophical debates crop up over perception, copyright, and social norms, which, while interesting, don't quite belong in a place designated for roleplaying. Occasional philosophical tangents are cool and all, if a fair number of the roleplayers are okay with it, but it's mostly been one or two people arguing while everyone else looks on awkwardly. The debate board exists for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 16, 2012 15:08:39 GMT -5
That's a generally fair feeling, Torkie. But to play devil's advocate (and guide discussion a bit), while you may not enjoy what you see as nitpicking, Omni might be doing it because she needs to understand that level of detail before moving on. Not for nitpicking and debating, but for getting a handle on it for her own enjoyment.
I think one thing I want to take a huge step to address here very strongly is that these issues are dealing with personalities. The only wrong thing anyone is doing is when the rulebreaking occurs. Before then, nothing is. We have personalities clashing, though.
So just before everyone starts posting, please keep in mind that this isn't about what anyone has done wrong. It's about helping people understand each other better.
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Apr 16, 2012 15:39:16 GMT -5
General point of consideration in reference to all those cases where issues crop up between two people: I can't generally tell if something I'm doing is bugging someone unless said someone finds the time and effort to sit down and talk to me about it (and actually talk and be willing to explain and have a dialogue n stuff, instead of just "you're doing this wrong, stop, end-o-story").
In fact, to echo Nat's post: any time there's an issue/debate/argument between two people, it's always been encouraged to take it to PMs, just so that anyone else who isn't involved in it won't have to feel all awkward. That's kinda how the forum works. The way I understand it, this thread here is happening in the first place largely because people hadn't been taking that route >>;
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Apr 16, 2012 16:19:37 GMT -5
Private discussions don't seem to always help that much when there are issues between just two Tacoers. I realize that it's been tried, and typically ends up in both parties simply ending up sad with no problems resolved. Typically when it involves the attitude of another forumer. That, incidentally, is why we are here now- to try and work things out where PM won't be feasible on its own. We're not trying to shame any one person or blame everything on them, we're trying to get things out there.
What I want is for the nitpicking/criticism/etc. to not be completely stopped or for anyone to snap off someone's head if they go "Can you clarify?", but for it to be toned down and for others' feelings to actually be taken into consideration here. Maybe Omni didn't want to hurt and just wanted clarification, but neither party is at fault for the argument thing happening seeing as Scrac responded to Omni's provocations, and in an understandable way. Sometimes the details aren't the most important and people should just try to have fun on a not-serious board in the first place.
I think this nitpicking has been taken to a more extreme level in the past and it did involve more than just two users. The issue of the Truce, for example, and if it was a literal truce or not. That was semantics, and tended to hurt everyone involved.
I felt victimized in the past based on being questioned on the terms of the truce when all I did want was to just have the Taco keep running, and I felt like if anyone was going to start picking on small details (what is allowed, what isn't, for example) then I wasn't going to participate anymore. I also felt hurt if my characters' actions or words were taken into question. I think there's a line between asking to have everything clear in one's head and causing another user to feel criticized and hurt unjustly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 17:40:16 GMT -5
zylaa thank you for reviewing this --- I have to agree that nitpicking is extremely off-putting. I go to the Taco for fun, casual RP, and if I go to the Taco and see textwalls about whether or not a move was feasible, I'm not going to want to get involved because of the awkwardness of jumping in when there's an argument going on. I'm also afraid myself of getting into an argument over some minor detail.
There's a line between clarification and dissecting a post and getting into an argument about how an attack works, and I think that line's been crossed a lot of times.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Apr 16, 2012 20:05:30 GMT -5
I'm putting this first part as a personal observation and based on what I understand. Not everything is meant to be read as definitively absolute. I think a lot of the conflict arises actually not from different personality traits, but similar ones. We seem to both want certain types of description, but have trouble giving a clear description. We tend to respond to things said to us (I know I often feel obligated), so if a topic starts it tends to continue on-and-on until it's wrapped up. We also have a tendency to hang onto certain details and keep focussing on them. I'd also like to note that I'm pretty sure she's brought up details several times. (Our last few posts should indicate it somewhat.) Also, on stopping RP to bring up details... well, let me just say that I've RP'd with her for awhile, and I'd rather stop and make sure we both something right than continue on a misunderstanding and have to redo things later. And yes, we've done the latter on multiple occasions. In fact, to echo Nat's post: any time there's an issue/debate/argument between two people, it's always been encouraged to take it to PMs, just so that anyone else who isn't involved in it won't have to feel all awkward. I actually suggested to bring the debate to PM and she basically said 'no, I'd rather not do the fight than fight over the fight.' I then responded to the things she had said and meant to continue RP while skipping over a lot of the spar, but had forgotten to post RP, time-skip or otherwise. So we ended up just discussing for a couple posts. Sometimes the details aren't the most important and people should just try to have fun on a not-serious board in the first place. Let me put it this way: I'm serious about even casual RP. I have trouble getting into it and enjoying it if I can't take it seriously. Random things like food fights I don't mind on occasion, but I can't stand constantly doing stuff that's absolutely not serious at all. I like getting into the characters' heads and thinking about how they'd respond, even in casual situations. I just don't like much mind-breaking and OOC except in small, occasional bits. (I think Scrac likes serious-even-in-casual as well, at least to an extent.) Maybe Omni didn't want to hurt and just wanted clarification... Omni might be doing it because she needs to understand that level of detail before moving on. Not for nitpicking and debating, but for getting a handle on it for her own enjoyment. ^ Basically this, especially Stal. ...but neither party is at fault for the argument thing happening seeing as Scrac responded to Omni's provocations, and in an understandable way. Omni wants details on the fighting. Keeps not understanding what Scrac is trying to describe. As the back and forth continues, both get frustrated. Wait, what? What provocations? And when and how did I express frustration, other than in the form of confusion?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 20:23:27 GMT -5
If it's not too much trouble, Omni, could you please respond to the rest of the posts by Drew, Torkie, Bettyming, and me? I think we made a lot of points that you're not addressing. [This post is stamped with the ZYLAA SEAL OF APPROVAL.]
|
|