Profile image
he/him/they/them
Active 6 hours ago
Unsubscribe
Forum Activity Mods (1)
I control computers
  • EnAppelsin voted on Trainman84's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    What exactly is deadnaming? I seem to be the only one here who doesn't know what that is, but it sounds serious. Is this something that puts the community at risk?
  • EnAppelsin voted on maz's topic: How to use the Mod Launcher
    Profile Image
    How to use the Mod Launcher
    maz made this topic 1 week ago
    8 likes
    101 views
    1 reply
  • EnAppelsin replied to Help! A troublesome error!
    The hack is to override the requirement to have an audio device yes, if you have one and just want it silent I'd suggest muting the game in the Windows volume mixer or similar to avoid upsetting SHAR.

    Usually when it asks to insert CD 1 what it really means is a file (audio, etc) is not found, so it could be a mistake/mod error instead of actually the CD not being there.
    You in general might prefer not having the CD and have a full install of SHAR (nothing from CD) and using the no-CD patch to remove the final checks.
  • EnAppelsin replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    I'm done here. I've made the point I wanted to. If its not going to be treated seriously and that people are going to jump to "Jake is condoning bigotry", they clearly do not understand the actual issue here.

    If you'd like to talk about this with me privately, be my guest. Done checking this thread. Have a good day everyone.

    Nobody has said this, nobody is saying this. People might be downvoting you because they disagree with your take on the issue?
    Also to your previous point "If someone defending their point is allowed to talk like this, I guess I am to? ", I believe so. You haven't been banned?


    the criticism that the initial action should've been handled privately has been accepted as a mistake due to the serious nature of deadnaming causing a bit of a rash reaction.

    It was "not taken seriously" so much that Borb made a thread to explain their rationale in face of people criticising it. so I don't get this fantasy of it not being taken seriously?

    What else is there? That Thomas and Mavis should have been silenced instead of flinging stuff? Maybe?

    Also again I have been taking note of various criticisms about how moderators handling it, which include differing takes. Some people may be unhappy, some may be happy. Some may be unhappy for the exact opposite reason to others.

    There's definitely been a problem about staff of the past not taking things seriously enough, but I believe we are working on changing that.
  • EnAppelsin voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    I'm done here. I've made the point I wanted to. If its not going to be treated seriously and that people are going to jump to "Jake is condoning bigotry", they clearly do not understand the actual issue here.

    If you'd like to talk about this with me privately, be my guest. Done checking this thread. Have a good day everyone.
  • EnAppelsin replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    The first response accepted criticism that it should have been a DM and tried to explain the reasoning behind why the action taken came off as quite severe.
    I have reemphasised it a few times.

    What then is the problem? Spell it out for me. What is the criticism that has not been accepted here?
  • EnAppelsin voted on Surreal Bot's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
    Ever considered they didn't voice their opinion and feelings because staff clearly doesn't give a f*** what the community has to say on any matter? Maybe they came back to join in with the fact that someone who at one point had a higher stature here is siding with them for how bulls*** this has been handled?

    EXACTLY.

    I initially re-activated my account to have my say on this, but seeing how so many of you are too self-righteous to accept any form of criticism, I don't why I should even bother. It's funny, because Jake's first message before he edited it was the most neutral of this argument.
  • EnAppelsin replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
    Ever considered they didn't voice their opinion and feelings because staff clearly doesn't give a f*** what the community has to say on any matter?

    Believe it or not, with concern about this I have been in contact with a few people to gauge community feeling, but if one or two people disagree, one of which being the person accused of bigotry, this does not immediately point to a serious problem

    Suggestions that moderations should grow a spine has been noted though, and I agree a step towards zero tolerance to bigotry is long overdue.
  • EnAppelsin replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

    -Thomas Donofri

    Honestly you say you have came to an understanding yet you come here to jump on accusing the moderators of inviting Mavis to harass you and that their actions were completely unsatisfied. Which is it?

    It's already been accepted that in calm hindsight a DM would have been more appropriate but the message was left 8 hours without any reaction and the offence caused by deadnaming caused a frustrated reaction after that. So what else is the problem? Again deadnaming is *serious* and actively causes stress and harm in the individual. In the mind of Borb they were given a warning and didn't respond for 8 hours, hence the rather brash reaction. Follow up responses minimising the problem (there was no "I didn't realise it was against the rules" admission, in fact the claim was it wasn't deadnaming or a big deal, if the vocal complaints were about that maybe things would've come out differently) didn't help things either.

    There's been a lot of calls from certain vocal people about moderators "accepting responsibility", even though the first post actually did accept mistakes. I've yet to see any reflection from the other side, or any indication they actually regret deadnaming, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

    Also a reminder about the community guidelines, deadnaming violates rule 1 warranting an immediate permanent ban (although this was never proposed) as well as rules 3 and 4.

    Also rule 2 forbids vote manipulation, but I'd hope nobody here would be doing that. :)

    My post directly says its wrong, the other people involved have either left the community or are not interested in this pursuit when that was not the problem to begin with because this isn't the problem that these people have.

    Please read the full message again, I am not referring to today, I am referring to the day in question, at no point was any sign given that it was accepted deadnamign was wrong, quite the opposite, hence the inflamed tensions. Also I think you and I both are aware the claim "people involved have either left the community or are not interested in this pursuit " is untrue.

    Mavis posts were to Thomas, who himself was inflaming the conversation because he wasn't involved in the original incident, and I get the impression you are correlating deadnaming to being told to a grow a spine, which I hope isn't the case. Also frankly being mildly rude in a way that wouldn't be out of character in the TV show/game this community is based on, in response to bigotry or defence thereof, doesn't strike me as the foulest of all crimes (SHAR reference for the fans here)

    I allowed a community member to say don't deadname me?
    Yet, moderation allowed, encouraged and happily stood by the 3 comments that made the situation escalate further.

    5 of those people aren't mods, and they also kinda outnumber the number of people who don't approve, do they not?

    There are some suspicious votes on this thread for sure, but it will be dealt with in time.
  • EnAppelsin replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

    -Thomas Donofri

    Honestly you say you have came to an understanding yet you come here to jump on accusing the moderators of inviting Mavis to harass you and that their actions were completely unsatisfied. Which is it?

    It's already been accepted that in calm hindsight a DM would have been more appropriate but the message was left 8 hours without any reaction and the offence caused by deadnaming caused a frustrated reaction after that. So what else is the problem? Again deadnaming is *serious* and actively causes stress and harm in the individual. In the mind of Borb they were given a warning and didn't respond for 8 hours, hence the rather brash reaction. Follow up responses minimising the problem (there was no "I didn't realise it was against the rules" admission, in fact the claim was it wasn't deadnaming or a big deal, if the vocal complaints were about that maybe things would've come out differently) didn't help things either.

    There's been a lot of calls from certain vocal people about moderators "accepting responsibility", even though the first post actually did accept mistakes. I've yet to see any reflection from the other side, or any indication they actually regret deadnaming, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

    Also a reminder about the community guidelines, deadnaming violates rule 1 warranting an immediate permanent ban (although this was never proposed) as well as rules 3 and 4.

    Also rule 2 forbids vote manipulation, but I'd hope nobody here would be doing that. :)