Man, at this point it would have been easier to just say “I don’t support toxicity or bigotry, don’t insinuate that I do, and get back on-topic” than continue to do backflips to avoid it and turn it around on people.
E:
It is not unfair at all to hold expectations of alliance and coalition leaders to maintain safe, friendly, and non-descriminatory environments for the people that fly under their ticker. They indeed have the power to curate such environments, and kick/ban people who violate the rules they set forth. In that way they are definitely liable. I honestly haven’t been around long enough here to know how bad or good one side is versus the other in this regard, but it’s ludicrous to think people are victims if they throw up their hands and say “I can’t help if X is a bigot in my alliance”. You can, actually, by denouncing it and holding it to your leaders to ensure such people don’t have a platform nor create toxic environments for others. If they don’t, then you should leave.
Poor old Githany gets a lot of harassment in game , the way I play I expect it from certain groups , not one miner or mission runner has attacked me in such away. I could stop such attacks right now by changing the way I play .
Don’t people understand this.
Well one miner did protest but he didn’t understand our intentions.
Like saying “if she didn’t want to get assaulted, she shouldn’t have worn yoga pants and jogged in the park after sunset.”
You don’t get it.
It’s not crazy to me, though. They’re the same as the people who fill Aiko’s blog. The only difference is that they’re familiar enough with the game’s meta to not say the things that would actually get them published there. Otherwise, they feel an affinity to those players, and likely think the same things internally as they do.
Positively correlated with aversion to PvP in general. They don’t view cowardice in a negative context, just like they don’t view snitching and whining in a negative context. Internally, all of these are labeled as morally-acceptable ways to act by them. Kind of weird when this includes people who are allegedly ex-military, but I’ve seen a few similar cases before.
Be wary of those who constantly complain about other people during a zombie apocalypse. They’re the ones who will clip your foot to use you as a distraction so that they can escape.
Nope…I saw that post of yours only an hour or so earlier. And there are others in which you disparage ‘boomers’. Yet you have the utter gall and hypocrisy to try to take the moral high ground on ‘discriminating bigots’. Since when was ageism not a form of discrimination ?
Well its hardly surprising when one ventures in here and finds some of the most toxic people on the internet all patting each other on the back with a sort of ’ you pretend I’m not toxic and I’ll pretend you’re not’. They’ve probably driven off all the decent people years ago,
Nope. If I were ageist, I’d have to discriminate against people who are older or younger than what I found acceptable, and not against a specific and relatively narrow age band that circumstantially defines the social/economic behavior of those people, which is in fact what I judge negatively about them. I see the generations that came before the boomers in a much better and more respectful light.
Be careful about jumping on those “eureka!” moments in debates, because they’re usually traps.
But you are judging an entire group of people defined by their age ( i,e ‘boomers’ ) in a totally stereotype manner regardless of their actual circumstance. The point is not whether you limit this to a certain corridor of age…but that you include ALL those within that range, without exception. Never mind that 95% of them likely don’t fit your prescribed ‘socio-economic behaviour’.
Surely the very definition of discrimination is any form of ’ all X are Y…’ form of stereotyping.
Gix is no different, with his ‘all AG are…’ and attempts to insinuate regarding them too.
Seriously, the level of utter hypocrisy here seems to know no bounds. Supposedly protecting people from stereotyping and discrimination…whilst engaging in just that.
It doesn’t appear that you do. The whole point of this discussion (in recent posts) is that things are transcending eve.
If player A ganks player B then player B can trash talk all they want. They can rp all they want. They can mobilise in game and take revenge if they want. That’s eve. The issue that is being highlighted is that when Player B’s response becomes rl threats it is unacceptable. Magnified where player A may have a female avatar and the those rl threats include references to sexual abuse. This happens. It is an issue and pretending it doesn’t happen is willfull ignorance.
You have for good or for Ill set yourself up as the anti-ganking figurehead. You are encouraging players to mobilise and fight back. Which is all great in game. But what happens when someone who is carrying out actions in your name goes to far. Ultimately it is that player that is in the wrong but as mobiliser in chief you need to shoulder some responsibility and be clear what is and is not acceptable in your name. Like it or not you are a leader ……. So lead. Be clear what is and what is not acceptable behaviour for members of your corp alliance and affiliates.
It’s not so long ago there was a thread where a group of people had ganked a newbie on stream and and the guy had a breakdown live on twitch as a result. Aiko wasn’t there, wasn’t part of it. But boy was Aiko blamed for it. The pitch forks were out. Aiko was forced to assess the issue and she did.
Just like you now need to address behaviour of players who do things in your name.
All you are being asked is to be clear that you think this behaviour is unacceptable…… and you don’t seem to be able to. And that is what is concerning.
Wake up. You have started something that is bigger than you. And that makes you accountable
You don’t understand what discrimination is. It’s literally impossible to discriminate against someone who holds all the power. I can’t discriminate against a group that can basically have me killed by raising my rent by $50.
The two are vastly different and not categorically mutually inclusive, and I’m engaging in the former, and not the latter.
No, you really don’t. You quite literally just said that if Aiko doesn’t want to be illegitimately singled out and discriminated against based on sex/gender, then Aiko shouldn’t engage in a legitimate, sanctioned activity (non-consensual player-killing in a video game that supports and validates such an activity). Ergo, you are blaming the victim. And if you do get it, then you’re willingly ignoring it, which is even worse.
If someone sets themselves up as a leader of something they cannot simply abdicate responsibility for what that something does.
If real life threats are being being made by members of the anti-ganking community then the leader of that community needs to be clear as to whether those threats are policy…… or a rogue element.
To quote uncle Ben “with great power comes great responsibility”
It’s a simple issue. Are threats or sexual harassment acceptable? Should be easy to address right?
