Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:56:38 -0600
From: Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net>
To: wizzes@spindizzy.org
Subject: New Information - Request for Comment - Agris
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
Message-ID: <11A48CFD-8A50-44F2-9A25-96EC738E38EF@nuegia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
So, just gonna warn you, I found out some info and it just blew my mind. I'm going to try being as respectful as possible but I may ask questions like, 'would you seriously do X' which might not sit super well.
You'll see what it is in the next paragraph, and just keep in mind that I do actually think you're all decent people who've got lives, maybe families, and I don't mean you any ill will. I might be a bit passionate because of the information I've received, please don't think it means I consider any of you as beneath me or my attention. It's your attention to me that even allows me to enjoy the privilege to exchange thoughts with you.
I recently discovered contrary to my initial belief that Agris was not banished from just The Observatory by Voksa, but multiple places at once. Potentially every place that Voksa could banish them from.
I was giving Voksa reasonable doubt that they simply wanted personal space, but such a banishment far exceeds what's necessary and forces me to ask an essential question.
Agris is being punished for harassment; Austin, you said so yourself. If Agris's form of harassment is trying to "force himself into Voksa's spaces" as you yourself put it, not only is he incapable of doing that in the literal sense, but that means that you must be in the position that Voksa is perfectly in the right to banish Agris on a whim. In fact, you said so.
"Your specific interest in Voksa's rooms coincides with a conflict with Voksa that began outside SpinDizzy."
"That conflict has no bearing on whether Voksa can decide who can enter his rooms.
If conflicts have no bearing on a banishment, I imagine friendships do not either. In other words, there is no bearing upon which banishment must rest. Banishments can happen for any reason, without explanation and without discourse, at any scale, from one room to roughly three thousand, so long as the room is 'private'.
More precisely, banishment of a specific individual from a room which everyone (including guests) can access is acceptable at the owner's discretion, so long as it is 'private'. This completely destroys any notion of a 'public room' that I am aware of. If a room is not made public by its accessibility, than what other quality is there? Good will? Some conveniently stowable notion?
If an individual says their room is public specifically, is that what must be done to make it so? How many of the three thousand or so rooms are actually public?
Banishment from such public-but-in-name rooms also can happen to anyone who is not Agris, as again, Agris is not special. There is no necessary reason for banishment, such as a conflict, as you yourself stated. Names are as ephemeral here as the need for rationale.
To quote further:
"Further, you have shown no concern over any of the large number of *other* rooms you don't have access to."
"To focus only on Voksa's establishes beyond doubt that the real problem is your relationship with Voksa, and not access to his rooms."
This dismisses the underlying issue. Agris is not *banned* from any other places, now very much plural, that are accessible by everyone else like this. Public places in all but name.
There is no other fitting example, as nobody else on Spindizzy has actually done this to him, so it is impossible for him to focus anywhere else.
In fact, I suspect I have to specifically stress that Agris could be anyone else, by your own admission, in order for you to understand this is not a personal issue but a general one. The problem is the policy, not the specific people involved, despite that the policy very much affects Agris at present.
Agris's conflict is unimportant. His denial of access which is now undeniably, clearly carving holes in the definition of 'public space' is. I was willing to discuss it when it was just one room, and maybe question what would happen were he to attend an open event in The Observatory - if it would lift his banishment temporarily to serve a clearly public function.
Now I don't even need to ask that.
He was banished from key waypoints, to the point where he couldn't simply walk in a direction without being warped back to the Garden involuntarily, upon entering a room which happens to be under Voksa's control.
What is public anymore? Where does the AUP apply? Just the Rose Garden? Wherever is convenient? If a space doesn't say 'We Care, We're Public' in bold letters, should I assume harassment in them and being treated however is just okay regardless of who can enter?
What could Agris do but refuse to enter private spaces? Is that tenable? Would you only reside in public spaces if you felt afraid of being burned, and feel like part of the community still?
This is an important question! It is imperative that you clearly define a public space, then assess exactly where Agris is banished, and who else is banished from there. Then you can say whether or not Agris is being justly banished, of course, if it requires justification at all.
If it's solely Agris (plus or minus some crusty names from feuds gone by) that's banished from a given room, and it is 'private', I argure that he is the only visible sign it is a 'private room'. It became functionally private at the moment he was banished, but for all other purposes remains 'public'.
At that instant it went from 'fair shake' and 'no jerks' to 'anything goes', and the mere concept that such a thing can happen in a majority of SpinDizzy rooms without so much as a comment is disturbing to say the least.
This could make the AUP completely pointless, as simply exercising ownership power over the room would override its usual 'public' nature regardless of location, accessibility, or function, outside of the most basic of locations. Certainly not the 'three thousand or so' being described as 'available to go to'.
Perhaps the proper terminology should be 'available to go to*'.
Count how many of that three thousand are places Agris *couldn't* be banished from without probable cause. Then tell him exactly how many rooms he has to roleplay in that can't ban him for nothing. Maybe it's a lot, but he needs that list like it's the only source of water in a searing desert.
It's not that he would actually do nothing, but that an owner can ban him for nothing and it is okay. That is the fundamental problem, along with the concept that it can happen en-masse in places which would appear sacred by all other indications. It's a bear trap in the bush.
What can you tell him to make him feel like putting his trust in private places anymore? His trust is shattered. He put his foot in this trap. Bone's snapped.
He cares, you know. I wouldn't be writing all this to you if he didn't. I looked at his logs. He really sunk a lot of time into you guys and I think what he fears most is losing the few people he feels some sort of bond to and shared interests with.
With that out of the way, the final thing I want to note is that it was immediately after the e-mail Agris sent to Patashu that he was ''suspended temporarily'' from SpinDizzy. Look at the bottom, you'll see I put my alias on it.
I initially thought the letter was to Ping, actually, and only noticed it was not after it had been sent, but I was trying to make it so that he wasn't the only one standing up for himself.
Half of that e-mail was mine, fretting over the idea that even brand new people could be barred from public spaces without comment and asking for discourse on it.
We made it clear that we don't want drama either; It was the first bullet point in the e-mail. Well, here I am again and all of my fears in that e-mail, from before I knew it was multiple places Voksa banished Agris from, seem to have coalesced in front of me.
If that's what you banned him from SpinDizzy itself for, you should be banning me too. And if I've made you mad, or uncomfortable, or destroyed your good day, I'm really, really sorry. I just want Agris to be happy. I want Voksa to be happy.
I want some talk. I want to hear what you need and prove we care about you. I want us to get along, and not to fight.
It's not Voksa that hurt Agris, it's the banishment. He doesn't want to be banished anymore by people who hold something dear to him. You guys, man, he wanted me to come and spend the New Year in The Observatory with him and meet you all, he was excited about it. Now it's all screwed up and it makes me want to cry every time I read this sentence over.
I wish I knew what to do to myself or what to tell Agris to make it right again and I don't care about trying to make you feel bad, it's not my intention at all and I don't know what to say to make you believe me so I'm just repeating it like a drawstring doll and hoping for the best. I just want him to be safe and given the fair shake advertised on the tin.
But the tin has an asterisk on it right now, and I don't know what to do. I don't want to tell people what to do with their places. But I want places that accept even guests to not see a name and immediately go on a banishing spree. "Agris" isn't a slur. He's a human being. It's not like he's waltzing in with "Hitler" as his name card. If you accept even guests you can't just banish members without a single word in either direction. At least sit him in a room and order him to do what you think he can't as a test of whether he can, or something, shoot. Anything.
Any communication that he has received for this are curt dismissals of his situation or simple declarations that he is 'being considered', with no further context save for a helpful spoon of non-liability statements. This doesn't exactly do much to reassure him and I would think that it would be apparent to anyone forming those kinds of responses.
Agris is the only person heavily involved in this issue that I am aware of who's not being asked any questions or being asked of at all, and he's supposed to be the one who needs adjustment and involvement most, if he were necessary to the issue. I imagine people being accused to be the crux of issues to require a great deal of attention. Agris has barely received any.
And you can't accept even guests and call yourself 'private' except as a means of saying 'not liable'. That's what it really means, deep down. And that's why I can't believe it, that when it comes down to it your peers can treat each other any way they feel like and be as good or nasty as they want... And then you can turn around and punish Agris for harassment. It's hubric and it makes me mad. I hate feeling mad.
He can't even talk directly to Voksa in any capacity as far as I'm aware. He's been stripped of everything, everything. He's the least capable of harassment. He screamed, kicked something at his desk, then curled into a little ball and cried. That's what he did.
I don't ever want him to go through something like that again and see someone call it justifiable by some moral code. At least not under the shroud of impartiality. People cry for dumb reasons but manipulative people don't usually cry out of grief, they just pretend.
It's the job of someone impartial to never assume someone's pretending to cry unless they have a damn good reason. I'd help you find that reason and listen if you really have one. But I hope to God you're wrong.
It's really rare that you meet someone nasty enough to pretend this good.
Best Wishes,
Kohrokho, alias Distaza, friend of Agris
---
If you choose to respond, it does not need to be prompt, however, I would like a general indication of opinion or some form of waiving your participation, if permissible, so that I know who not to bother and so that I know what level of attention is 'appropriate' to me. It's impossible for me to tell even if you are considering my words when the confirmation of reception doesn't indicate your level of response or the seriousness by which the information is being taken.
This puts me into the position of least confidence by default and forces me to accept the possibility at any moment that I have transgressed silently upon some boundary and am being punished without knowing what I've done. Again it serves to show a lack of communication and I implore you to communicate even the smallest rule or statement that you can be confident of or that I am failing to meet, if one exists.