Mistakes Were Made (But Not by EN World)

I have been involved with the EN World rpg website for some time.  I lurked, then joined in 2004.  At the time of this writing, I have 12,488 posts on the site, and am #12 (of 112,271 members) for XP (a method by which useful posts and posters can be rated). 

I believe that I have made valuable contributions to the site in the past.  I have spent a lot of time on the site, and stepping away from it is going to hurt.  I believe that EN World has been great in the past, and has the potential to be great in the future, but conscience requires me to disassociate myself with it now.

Allow me to explain.

EN World was originally owned by Eric Noah, and had what came to be known as the “Eric’s Grandmother” rule.  To wit, if something was not appropriate for Eric’s Grandmother, it was not appropriate for the site.  This rule was retained (and rightly so) when the site was taken over by the current “Admiral O’ The High Seas” (hereafter AOTHS).

Recently, a thread appeared on EN World that dealt with topics which the Eric’s Grandmother rule would seem to apply to.  Specifically, to the topic of rape.  Rape was depicted in a way as to be offensive to several posters.  And, no, I am not going to go into details about this depiction.  Some of these posters went to great lengths to attempt to get the AOTHS to deal with the problem.  They were unsuccessful.  In fact, the AOTHS perma-banned at least one of those posters from both EN World and its sister site, Circvs Maximvs.

In a Meta thread on EN World about this topic, EN World moderator Piratecat posted:

Up until now, we've never needed guidelines about this. In the recent event a discussion about in-game rape occurred under very congenial "I abhor this in real life but it occurs in my game world" discussion, and it very understandably made a lot of people furious. That's a problem in part because the moderators, quite correctly following our rules, moderated the people who lost their temper and not the polite person who brought up the subject regarding his game. 'Cause hey, using babies as human shields is truly repugnant too, but a thread where bad guys in a game do this won't even raise an eyebrow; shouldn't a discussion of in-game rape be treated the same way?

We've decided, quite correctly, not a friggin' chance.

Baby-shields don't require a trigger warning. One in five people aren't subject to baby-shields during their college years. And while we've been moderating according to our guidelines, in the case of discussion surrounding sexual assault the moderators and administrators here agree that our guidelines are flat-out wrong.

So we apologize, and here's the deal. Like racism or adult topics, this isn't the place to discuss your campaign's variants of rape or molestation. We don't care, we don't want to hear it, and we won't put up with it. We will moderate accordingly. Folks, please report it if you run across it.

All well and good, right?

Well, no.  Because, despite coming to the conclusion that the AOTHS had been wrong to dismiss, repeatedly and vociferously, those who tried to tell him just that – rather than being thanked for fighting so hard to make EN World a better place – have been ostracized.

There were claims that “we don't discuss moderation with anyone other than the person being moderated” but moderation often appears publicly.  Anyone who examines the site can see public moderation appearing frequently in red or in orange text.  Indeed, people are asked not to use red text because that colour is reserved for public moderation. 

Moreover, after publicly castigating individuals for trying to point out the obvious, a public apology is in order.  Or, even, a public admission that, perhaps, said castigation was a mistake.

And, of course, the cross-board drama went a bit beyond castigation.  When the AOTHS threatened to close Circvs Maximvs – when it became clear that there were more people who thought the original decision was as obviously mistaken as the EN World moderators eventually came to realize – the overblown vitriol was somewhat disproportionate, shall we say, and it was not aimed at the individual responsible for both (1) the original error and (2) the threat to take his toys away, but rather at those who pointed out the obvious moderation problem.  And that vitriol was of the type that, in the “real world” beyond the InterWeb, almost anyone would be ashamed of being associated with.

There have been claims that the moderation staff of EN World are not “a big fan of cross-board drama”, and people have been banned from EN World for posts on another site (SomethingAwful). 

Of course, Circvs Maximvs has always been about “cross-board drama” – the staff merely don’t want the drama going in a direction that makes EN World look bad.  There is always an “Asshattery on EN World” thread of some sort ongoing, where people create cross-board drama, including intentionally trolling EN World and then returning to Circvs Maximvs to brag about it.  So, this explanation for the behavior of the AOTHS and moderation staff falls rather flat.

It also rather ignores that the thread arose on SomethingAwful, not simply “to get a rise out of” EN World, but because of the actions of the EN World staff.  To wit, making it impossible to speak on EN World requires either that one goes elsewhere, or that one shuts the fuck up.  Clearly, people on EN World are being punished for not shutting the fuck up.  As though the AOTHS can control people’s reactions to his actions, even beyond the precincts of his little spot on the Net.

(Not long ago, I’d have been surprised if I were banned from EN World for making this blog post; now I will be surprised if I am not.  Of course, not so long ago, I would have denied that anything like this ever would happen at EN World, where the moderation has been historically excellent).

The real problem, IMHO, is not that EN World refused to take action to deal with the “pro-rape” thread – everyone makes mistakes.  No, the real problem is that, knowing this to be a mistake – an obvious and egregious mistake, the AOTHS has apparently chosen to punish those who pointed it out in an ongoing matter.  In other words, it is not the mistake that was made, but the mistake that continues, which is the real problem.

So, the claims about how this is being dealt with, and the reasons for actions, seem to be rationalizations (at best) to avoid fixing the real problem.

“In normal circumstances, people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them, which makes them aware they have lost credibility…..[T]here were no such correctives, especially for those who belonged to the upper stratum.  On the contrary, every self-deception was multiplied as in a hall of distorting mirrors, becoming a repeatedly confirmed picture of a fantastical dream world which no longer bore any relationship to the grim outside world.  In those mirrors I could see nothing but my own face reproduced many times over.”

-- Albert Speer

“We were completely wrong, and only when we have admitted that and paid the price of our mistakes can we expect the public at large to have much faith in our government or our political system.”

-- Jeb Stuart Magruder

Of course, Albert Speer was talking about the Third Reich, and Jeb Magruder about the Watergate scandal, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.  Those posts have been put behind a wall, so that only members can see them now, but they are not pretty.  And, again, they are so not pretty that I am not going to post them here.  Some selected quotes have appeared on the SomethingAwful website if you really need to read them.

Suffice it to say that what the Third Reich did, select denizens of Circvs Maximvs and EN World expressed a desire to do.  In the case of Watergate, lies, cover-ups, and blaming those who discovered misdeeds was rationalized as just another step.

And it is so easy to take just another step.  After all, this is only the InterWeb, and no one takes anything we say or do seriously, right?

I posted:

If EN World recognizes that mistakes were made, kudos to you.

I assume, then, that those who should have been moderated will now be dealt with appropriately, and that those who were inappropriately moderated -- and, perhaps, banned from the site as a result -- will receive an apology and an invitation back?

Because, if not, it isn't the decision you are trying to undo; it is the consequence of the decision. And if it is only the consequence of the decision you are trying to undo, I don't believe that is acceptable.

Obviously, I am only asking in a general sense. I am not asking you to comment on any specific moderation. But if anyone remains banned for trying to bring the site owner & staff to come to the conclusion that you seem to have here, I cannot in good conscious remain associated with EN World.

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers.

-- Lao Tzu

Time to decide how great, or how petty, EN World is to be.

My post has been described as “petty” by at least one poster.  So be it.

I have begun the process of removing my content from EN World, from those threads where I am still allowed to edit my posts.  I will continue to do so, periodically, until I am no longer providing content to the site, I am no longer able to remove posts due to moderator action, or the AOTHS takes Jeb Magruder’s advice and restores my faith in his government.