Return-Path: <austin@spindizzy.org>
Delivered-To: distaza@nuegia.net
X-Rspamd-Server: mail2
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.60 / 15.00];
RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[];
ARC_NA(0.00)[];
MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
MV_CASE(0.50)[];
MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[distaza@nuegia.net];
REPLY(-4.00)[];
RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[166.84.1.89:from];
DMARC_NA(0.00)[spindizzy.org];
AUTH_NA(1.00)[];
TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[];
RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record];
FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
ASN(0.00)[asn:2033, ipnet:166.84.0.0/16, country:US];
RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: af9f40d2
X-SenderScore: 99
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89])
by mail2 (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPS id af9f40d2 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO)
for <distaza@nuegia.net>;
Sun, 30 Jan 2022 18:18:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [38.131.232.202])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JmzwP13btzRyj;
Sun, 30 Jan 2022 13:18:45 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: New Information - Request for Comment - Agris
From: Austin Dern <austin@spindizzy.org>
In-Reply-To: <11A48CFD-8A50-44F2-9A25-96EC738E38EF@nuegia.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 13:18:44 -0500
Cc: wizzes@spindizzy.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D177F5F-03CD-4119-A0A0-56B44AE46AD9@spindizzy.org>
References: <11A48CFD-8A50-44F2-9A25-96EC738E38EF@nuegia.net>
To: Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Hello,=20
Your comments are received and will be considered. This is not =
to say that you will receive any specific reply after this.
Austin Dern
> On Jan 29, 2022, at 9:56 PM, Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> "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.
>=20
> 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'.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> To quote further:
>=20
> "Further, you have shown no concern over any of the large number of =
*other* rooms you don't have access to."
>=20
> "To focus only on Voksa's establishes beyond doubt that the real =
problem is your relationship with Voksa, and not access to his rooms."
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Now I don't even need to ask that.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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'.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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'.
>=20
> Perhaps the proper terminology should be 'available to go to*'.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> It's really rare that you meet someone nasty enough to pretend this =
good.
>=20
> Best Wishes,
> Kohrokho, alias Distaza, friend of Agris
>=20
>=20
> ---
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.