La Villa Strangiato Posted March 13 Posted March 13 (edited) BYOND Key: Lavillastrangiato Game ID: Several rounds I am referencing I do not have on hand, but the one I am directly quoting is csI-aJog Player Byond Key/Character name: Fluffyghost Staff involved: N/A Reason for complaint: Fluffy has a consistent record of making comments that are inappropriate towards transgender people, both ICly and OOCly, whether he realizes it or not. I first noticed this when his character Deshan Baral continuously misgendered my character, Meret Aikio, even after being repeatedly corrected that she was a woman. I talked about it the first time it happened in Aurora general, which Fluffy noticed and commented on. I'm not about to mog someone for not being able to parse the 2D spaceman pixel sprites, so I thought no harm, no foul. Unfortunately, I didn't collect screenshots during the following times, as the incidents where the characters interacted are relatively few and I thought they would be one-off incidents. Deshan Baral continued to misgender Meret, after being ICly and OOCly corrected that yes, this character is a woman. It was starting to annoy me, but this escalated into what I would call suspect after Fluffy did this on a different character, Mike Lenivier. Meret was being rude, as she often is ICly, and in one of Lenivier's emotes, Fluffy referred to her with "he". This irritated me, but I didn't recall off the top of my head that Fluffy had been corrected about this character's gender before, and I didn't want to ahelp over what at the time seemed a fairly small transgression. I told Fluffy in LOOC that I didn't appreciate them going on to misgender my character in emotes, which are not a character's IC thoughts. If I recall correctly, he responded that "Meret" seemed like a masculine name owing to not having an equivalent in Italian. I was suspicious but decided to let it go, until the events of a recent round I was observing, where Deshan Baral was interacting with the character Levi Kersaavi. Levi's pronouns on their examine text had been changed to "they/them" for a couple weeks (I think, it might have been longer), and they'd been "Levi Kersaavi" instead of "Lana Kersaavi" for a few months. Baral had interacted with the character as "Levi" before; it would be basically impossible not to know their name in their records and used in public was "Levi". With all the combat logs and non-involved character dialogue excised, here's the exchange: Spoiler Deshan Baral says, "Come on Lana." Levi Kersaavi stammers, "L-lungs." Deshan Baral says, "Don't die on me." Levi Kersaavi says, "Stop... calling me that..." Deshan Baral says, "Not like I would miss you or anything, but." Kornelija Rigo exclaims, "Call 'em by their bloody name they like while they're dyin'!" Deshan Baral exclaims, "That is her name!" Kornelija Rigo exclaims, "Levi is their name!" Deshan Baral asks, "According to who? The Narlak federation?" Kornelija Rigo exclaims, "Don't be a tosser!" Deshan Baral says, "They can go fuck themselves." Kornelija Rigo says, "Accordin' to them." Levi Kersaavi stutters, "-It's my legal name, p-prick." Levi Kersaavi stammers, "And I'll punch you again." Deshan Baral says, "Shut up Lana, I did CPR on you." At which point I decided to bite the bullet and make this complaint; I did not ahelp, as it was the two minutes before round-end. Even after what I've described prior, I'd still like to assume that Fluffy's comments were just ignorant and not malicious. I know that not everybody is up-to-date on the climate of gender and sexuality in the modern day, but these incidents have stacked up, and it does not reflect well on him. I understand some of this complaint is hearsay, and not really "actionable". Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I'd like to make it clear that this is not really a good thing to do or say, ICly or OOCly. Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation?: I did not, owing to the first few incidents being relatively minor, the "misgendering Levi" being at the very end of the aforementioned round, and the de-pronouning PR being discussed by headstaff. Approximate Date/Time: N/A Edited March 14 by La Villa Strangiato removal of thing
ReadThisNamePlz Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Hello, @eddymakaveli and I are handling this. I need input from @Fluffy I also need to know if you @La Villa Strangiato or the player of Levi Kersaavi have ever explicitly asked oocly to not misgender your characters. The interaction in the discord isn’t sufficient enough for this. If you did ask, I need the evidence posted here.
Owen Posted March 13 Posted March 13 @Nol4 We would like your input on this as well, please. Quote The player of Levi Kersaavi have ever explicitly asked oocly to not misgender your characters. The interaction in the discord isn’t sufficient enough for this. If you did ask, I need the evidence posted here.
La Villa Strangiato Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said: I also need to know if you @La Villa Strangiato or the player of Levi Kersaavi have ever explicitly asked oocly to not misgender your characters. During the instance where Meret Aikio was misgendered in an emote from Mike Lenivier, I mentioned I said something along the lines of "dude, why do you keep doing this". Again, however, this is hearsay. Apart from this, I think Nol4 has more to say on the matter than I. I'd also like to take this opportunity to state, in more clear and obvious terms, that I understand the initial case is pretty limited in terms of evidence, and I am not trying to accuse Fluffy of hatecrime-level bigotry. Rather, it's simply an unpleasant pattern of behaviour that I wish I could have ahelped during the round referenced in the round ID, if it was not literally right before round end. Edited March 13 by La Villa Strangiato clarifies that i dont think fluffy is jk rowling
Fluffy Posted March 14 Posted March 14 You will have to excuse my longwinded and fairly irritated post. There's much I can overlook, pass as misunderstandings, issues with me using the English language and not being clear enough, and the likes, but having ill intents assumed, presumed, inferred or vaguely alluded to is not something I will put up with, nor is misrepresenting things. Enough is enough. I barely recall the existence of your character, frankly; the name of which do not have an Italian equivalent and sound masculine in tonality, looks masculine thanks to the sprite, and our encounters usually happen in high adrenaline scenarios (owing to your character being an FR and mine being in Security) where remembering what your character said months prior isn't something I have the time to do, so the interaction boils down to "MEDIC!" and little else. 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: Meret was being rude, as she often is ICly, and in one of Lenivier's emotes, [...]I told Fluffy in LOOC that I didn't appreciate them going on to misgender my character in emotes, which are not a character's IC thoughts. This never happened. I do recall this LOOC, which went on the likes of (and i am paraphrasing): > "hey fluffy did you misgender this character on purpose with yours?" < "no" > "why did you used "he" in the emote?" < "yea sorry, the name does not have an equivalent in italian and sounds masculine, that's probably why" The misframing is in the "told Fluffy in LOOC that I didn't appreciate them going on to misgender my character in emotes", which is not what happened; you asked if it was intentional, I said it wasn't, you then asked why I chose "he", I told you why I chose it. That's it, that's all. I have also clarified repeatedly that I also use the neutral "he", though I do not recall if it was to you specifically, both because it's the default in my language that do not have a neutral, and because it's how I was taught to use the English language, that's how it makes sense to me, it's the most familiar way to translate it. 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: Levi's pronouns on their examine text had been changed to "they/them" for a couple weeks (I think, it might have been longer), and they'd been "Levi Kersaavi" instead of "Lana Kersaavi" for a few months. Baral had interacted with the character as "Levi" before; it would be basically impossible not to know their name in their records and used in public was "Levi". With all the combat logs and non-involved character dialogue excised, here's the exchange: This is another misframing, while it might be due to you not knowing the context, it does not excuse you from misrepresenting this. I will explain this as succintly as possible. My character and NoI4 character have an history of jabbing at each other. Relevant to this particular context, this usually takes the form of his character calling mine "Dorsh" instead of "Deshan", and my character reverting back to use "Lana" instead of "Levi"; this is a fairly common occurrence that is generally always initiated in this manner, the reasoning behind it is quite simple: If your character refuses to use mine's name, mine will do the same to yours. This was never took as an OOC thing, and my character generally uses Levi until prompted with "Dorsh". In the same round you are referencing, the logs will show that he was called "Dorsh", and then, and only then, my character called that character "Lana". You are also vastly overestimating the times I need to inspect anyone that's not an antag, which is, basically never. This was also never brought up to me OOCly either; if anything, the sustained prompt with "Dorsh" as well as the lack of any OOC matter brought up to me is to me indicative that this level of conflict is found entertaining, enjoyable, or otherwise interesting or amusing. I do not claim to read minds, mind you, but I was not given any reason to believe otherwise, so I am just inferring from the information available to me. 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: This isn't the only time that Fluffyghost has said some eyebrow-raising stuff. In a recent PR I made on Brotendo's behalf to remove gendered pronouns from Skrell to reflect their lack of gender identity, Fluffy had this to say; Three misframings in a single post must amount to some kind of prize; while it's still somehow possible that my point was misunderstood, my goodwill to let it slide is exhausted, so I will proceed to address it as yet another misframing. If you bothered to take a minute to understand the whole post before evicting things from the context in which they are said, you would have noticed that I was talking about what the mechanic is supposed to represent, which I backed up in my next comment from the only decision on the matter present in the forums at the moment. My point was referring to the feature alone, which represents what you can see. At no point I have indicated that what you can infer visually is correct or right, you can clearly be mistaken and misleaded by what your eyes see. You can have reasonable interpretations that are wrong, it happens all the time. I was talking about the feature representing sexual dimorphism, I was asked how then it should be used in that context, and I addressed how it should be used in that context. In fact, in the same comment, I went to explain the difficulties between the mechanical possibilities, the various philosophical positions that exist on the topic, and so on. My point was that the inspection should represent sexual dimorphism as seen by the subsequent quote that I cited on the matter, and not go into the deep weeds and complexities of the topic. 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: This comment was brought up by me in a discussion with other head staff, during which we agreed it was inappropriate. I thusly assumed that Fluffy would be spoken to by moderation, but I did not follow up on this. No, first of all, noone brought this up to me. Second of all, in virtue of me not being sure I was expressing the point well, I have also consulted with one of our Head Devs before posting the aforementioned reply to make sure I was correctly representing it; neither of us saw anything wrong with it, so I will chalk it up to you and what I presume being your friends going nuclear to an almost single line reply point while ignoring the whole context it was said into. I do not appreciate being taken out of context. I will also note, noone seeked to have any clarification about it either, I can only suppose that the offer of social economy of brownie points from virtue signaling and/or drama spurring was too much of a juicy offer not to take, so reacting was more important than seeking to understand what was being said. 11 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: Even after what I've described prior, I'd still like to assume that Fluffy's comments were just ignorant and not malicious. You clearly didn't, or this complain would not have existed in the first place, you would have messaged me on Discord with something like "hey I saw this this and this and I think/feel/would like to/whatever [...]" instead. 12 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: I know that not everybody is up-to-date on the climate of gender and sexuality in the modern day, but these incidents have stacked up, and it does not reflect well on him. I understand some of this complaint is hearsay, and not really "actionable". Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I'd like to make it clear that this is not really a good thing to do or say, ICly or OOCly. You don't get to take the moral high ground and virtue signal after filing a complain based on hearsay, quotes taken out of context and misrepresented events that you not only did not bother to get the full context of, but didn't care to even see if what you & company understood was what it actually said or happened, especially framing with such slanderous insinuations. You at best called me an ignorant, you literally wrote it; the insinuation is much worse even if you try to backpedal it afterwards. Considering you already called me a dog but some months ago, was unnecessarily abrasive in multiple occasions that can be seen both in Discord and on some PRs, as well as things I cannot even talk about here from staffcord, and your own complain you received, and now this, I don't see a way in which I could not see this as something bad. I might be wrong, of course, but I ran out of goodwill this time around.
La Villa Strangiato Posted March 14 Author Posted March 14 29 minutes ago, Fluffy said: The misframing is in the "told Fluffy in LOOC that I didn't appreciate them going on to misgender my character in emotes", which is not what happened; you asked if it was intentional, I said it wasn't, you then asked why I chose "he", I told you why I chose it. That's it, that's all. On second thought, that actually does sound closer to what was exchanged. You're right, and I apologize for my mistake. I did not mean to misrepresent you here. As for the GitHub thing, I did find a lot of your language weird, and a couple people I was speaking to about the incident said it made them uncomfortable. But you're right that it's easily misinterpreted, and I'm going to remove that from this complaint. Most of your post is more fit to be addressed by Nol4, which I intend to allow them to do. But before that, let me boil down my points to something direct, concise, and not surrounded by "evidence". When you misgendered my character, I thought it was kind of uncomfortable, but initially chalked it up to you just forgetting or not knowing. When you kept doing it after you were corrected IC (and after I mentioned it OOC), I started to feel like you were doing it on purpose. When you then deliberately used the birth name of a character who has expressed that they are transitioning, over the course of a few months, and continued to do so after repeatedly being corrected in-character, to the point this was brought up on a now-dropped incident report, I became very suspicious that you were being kind of a dick about it. I became extra suspicious when I saw you had made remarks on the GitHub that made other people uncomfortable. These GitHub remarks also were the catalyst for a stir about the intent of the de-pronouning PR, which I was recalling at the time. Why didn't I message you? You and I aren't friends. We just exist in the same social space. This is not "you're not my friend because you're stinky and evil", we just don't really talk. If someone's not your friend, you can't know how they'll react if you say "what you said and did reflects poorly on you/is bad faith/kind of ruined my fun". I had an experience with this on a different RP server. Someone I thought I was on good terms with metagamed a friend of mine while the friend "stealth mode", basically pointing them out directly using an emote. The person I thought I was chill with had done this before to players from an "enemy" faction who were sneaking around, and I casually brought it up to them in the hopes they'd realise their mistake. The person I was talking to absolutely lost their mind at me, saying I was accusing them of being a bad player, and I ended up reporting them anyway because they were totally out of line. Since then I do not personally tell people if they do something that is bad faith but not "ahelpable", because I can't predict how they'll react. If we had this argument in private, neither of us could be held responsible by moderation, unless we both went to admins separately, claiming so-and-so said this and that. This would turn into a mess (more than it admittedly already is). Why a player complaint? It's possible that I could discuss this with Matt or Arrow, but they manage you as a developer and not as a player. I'm not supposed to message the ahelp bot on Discord because that's for Discord complaints. If I PM an admin to discuss any concerns I have on Discord, I'll be told to make a player complaint. I couldn't ahelp the round I'm quoting because, again, it was at the very tail end of the round. What I could have done differently? Assumed good faith on your part, or at least not deliberate malice, and spoken to you in private about how this did not come off well. (I am still leery of this but the culture on Aurora is pretty different than the server the aforementioned incident happened on.) Emphasized more that this was not an intent to get you banned or harshly punished. Rather, an attempt to have a moderator, who is better at, well, moderating, tell you that this is not on. Only mentioned the hearsay bits in passing/had them be less accusatory. 59 minutes ago, Fluffy said: Considering you already called me a dog but some months ago, was unnecessarily abrasive in multiple occasions that can be seen both in Discord and on some PRs, as well as things I cannot even talk about here from staffcord, and your own complain you received, and now this, I don't see a way in which I could not see this as something bad. I might be wrong, of course, but I ran out of goodwill this time around. That's not what happened. In this incident where you claim I "called you a dog", I said, "I'm not reading all that, dog". "Dog" is slang for "dude/guy/man", or referring to a person in a casual way. I'm not sure where these occasions where I was "unnecessarily abrasive" [on the Discords] were, except for when Lain asked me why I said "I'm not reading all that, dog". I replied that it was because it was a lot of text, and I was already annoyed that people were fighting so incredibly hard to keep nerfs specifically to women's clothing in. That was pretty much it; I wasn't warned. Unless you mean times I have been Discord-struck, I'm pretty sure that the only time I've been spoken to specifically by a moderator on Discord is the incident I'm referencing. I'm not sure why you are bringing up a staff complaint from six months ago that amounted to me saying what amounted to "I don't like the porn robot being used as an example of this person's work" in private, which even the aforementioned person thought was unnecessary. I think it's rude of you to claim I am "virtue-signalling", or trying to make some sort of moral grandstand. Has it ever occurred to you that I complained because it makes me uncomfortable, and I dislike seeing it? My own discomfort affected how I approached this, but you're out of line on that and I don't think that's relevant or appropriate for you to say.
Nol4 Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) Heya, I was asked to comment. I'm only going to touch on what's relevant to my character since I have no context or involvement in the rest of it. Here is the short version of Baral and Levi's interactions over Levi's name from my perspective, which occurred over several weeks leading up to now. Quote Levi tells Baral at the cafe that their name is now 'Levi'. Baral responds "Do I look like I give a fuck." Not long after(a few days irl) Levi's name changes mechanically, and they tell him again that their name is Levi. He continues to call them Lana. At this point I/Levi shrug and Levi starts calling him variants of Dorsh/Dorshan. Across the shifts they share they mention multiple times that their name is Levi, and they will lay off the Dorshening if he respects their name. Several other characters overhear their various arguments and also encourage Deshan to use their name, including command staff at one point. As far as I am aware, Deshan continues to exclusively call them 'Lana'. Their relationship at this point has gone from unfriendly to openly hostile. Their mutual hostility is IRed. (Out of character, I thought this might bring some natural resolution to the issue.) Levi discusses Deshan's behavior towards them, the deadnaming included, in their interview which is then binned for unrelated reasons. Deshan continues to use "Lana". Levi continues to request "Levi". An observing player sees it and files this complaint. While I think deadnaming as a character gimmick is tacky, I don’t think I’ve ever talked to Deshan’s player OOCly in any capacity. I didn’t particularly want to deal with making it an OOC issue at the time, though I’d been weighing it as it became clear the character wasn’t going to stop naturally ICly. Since it's become an OOC discussion and we're already here: if @Fluffy is fine with ending this part of their dynamic then I don't think I have anything else to contribute to this thread. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me. Edited March 14 by Nol4 like 4 words 30 seconds after posting
Fluffy Posted March 14 Posted March 14 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: Why didn't I message you? If someone's not your friend, you can't know how they'll react if you say "what you said and did reflects poorly on you/is bad faith/kind of ruined my fun". I had an experience with this on a different RP server. Someone I thought I was on good terms with metagamed a friend of mine while the friend "stealth mode", basically pointing them out directly using an emote. The person I thought I was chill with had done this before to players from an "enemy" faction who were sneaking around, and I casually brought it up to them in the hopes they'd realise their mistake. The person I was talking to absolutely lost their mind at me, saying I was accusing them of being a bad player, and I ended up reporting them anyway because they were totally out of line. How someone react to it is what can give reason for a complain, this pretty much boils down to it; if someone does something that you don't like, the bare minimum you can do is telling him as such, then depending on the reaction it would make sense to complain about it, eg. in the example you gave, the reaction is what makes sense to be a complain if you don't reach an agreeable solution and there's something that violates the rules OOCly (this of course doesn't apply to griefings or similar, but we're clearly not talking about that kind of things here). 9 hours ago, La Villa Strangiato said: That's not what happened. In this incident where you claim I "called you a dog", I said, "I'm not reading all that, dog". "Dog" is slang for "dude/guy/man", or referring to a person in a casual way. I'm not sure where these occasions where I was "unnecessarily abrasive" [on the Discords] were, except for when Lain asked me why I said "I'm not reading all that, dog". I replied that it was because it was a lot of text, and I was already annoyed that people were fighting so incredibly hard to keep nerfs specifically to women's clothing in. That was pretty much it; I wasn't warned. Unless you mean times I have been Discord-struck, I'm pretty sure that the only time I've been spoken to specifically by a moderator on Discord is the incident I'm referencing. I'm not sure why you are bringing up a staff complaint from six months ago that amounted to me saying what amounted to "I don't like the porn robot being used as an example of this person's work" in private, which even the aforementioned person thought was unnecessary. I think it's rude of you to claim I am "virtue-signalling", or trying to make some sort of moral grandstand. Has it ever occurred to you that I complained because it makes me uncomfortable, and I dislike seeing it? My own discomfort affected how I approached this, but you're out of line on that and I don't think that's relevant or appropriate for you to say. You said "I'm not reading all that shit, dog". The framing is once again important, because I spent a good while to explain to you the reasoning, and crapping on my effort alongside using "dog" did not come off as something casual and light-hearted. I did then accepted that you was probably using a distorted version of "dawg", but when there's a pattern of things, it becomes kind of suspicious that using the distorted version of "dawg" was only, just choosing the worst possible moment to use the distorted version of "dawg". I brought it up to illustrate that I'm not talking about something an oopie-daisy sorry, there's a pattern of abrasiveness, the relevant part isn't the specific content or the why, but the aforementioned abrasiveness, which, is not something I might be biased to see there, the last message confirms it and indicates steps to work on it, which is to say, I'm not imagining things and I don't think to be biased in seeing things that aren't there. You was also illustrated on the risks of echo-chambering there, which distorts the perception of things, so it was also relevant in regards to misframing/misinterpreting my words. There's a reason I don't accept "side servers" invites, and that's exactly this, I do not want to be biased as much as I can avoid it. 3 hours ago, Nol4 said: Levi tells Baral at the cafe that their name is now 'Levi'. Baral responds "Do I look like I give a fuck." Not long after(a few days irl) Levi's name changes mechanically, and they tell him again that their name is Levi. He continues to call them Lana. At this point I/Levi shrug and Levi starts calling him variants of Dorsh/Dorshan. Across the shifts they share they mention multiple times that their name is Levi, and they will lay off the Dorshening if he respects their name. Several other characters overhear their various arguments and also encourage Deshan to use their name, including command staff at one point. As far as I am aware, Deshan continues to exclusively call them 'Lana'. Their relationship at this point has gone from unfriendly to openly hostile. I recall your character telling mine that it was looking to change name, but never mentioned anything other than changing name, and was already calling mine "Dorsh" or the likes, hence the "Do I look like I give a fuck" (aka: why would it care about it, while your character doesn't care about mine's one either). I distinctly remember my character using "Levi" in a sentence and getting back a "Dorsh" in multiple occasions though, even over radio, and I am certain of it because I wanted OOCly to check in if you still found this line of conflict entertaining to continue. I invite the admin to grep the chat logs to confirm that I have indeed used Levi in various occasions, because I am certain I did. 3 hours ago, Nol4 said: Since it's become an OOC discussion and we're already here: if @Fluffy is fine with ending this part of their dynamic then I don't think I have anything else to contribute to this thread. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me. Sure, if you don't find this part of our characters conflict entertaining, I have no problem dropping this line of conflict between our characters. It's a game, if something isn't functional to entertaining or, even worse, reduces the entertainment value, it can go. 1
La Villa Strangiato Posted March 14 Author Posted March 14 5 hours ago, Fluffy said: You said "I'm not reading all that shit, dog". The framing is once again important, because I spent a good while to explain to you the reasoning, and crapping on my effort alongside using "dog" did not come off as something casual and light-hearted. Ah, I see how you'd make that assumption. I swear like a sailor, and using it is not something that I take all that seriously. Most of my "Internet-speak" is full of a lot of swearing, vulgarities, and slang, which is how I engage with familiar people in spaces that aren't work-or-school related. As this is SS13 OOC, I operate under the assumption most people are generally on the level of seriousness of "he's turning her into a Papa John's", but like anyone I am not immune to being emotionally wounded or offended (nobody is). Since my complaint was mostly about my own characters getting misgendered which was background info to what I found was kind of an egregious dead-naming incident with Levi, I'm also fine with closing it off here if the agreement is not continuing that line of conflict. I have no more issues to address and I apologise it came to this on my part.
Owen Posted March 19 Posted March 19 Alright so, first things first. We (@ReadThisNamePlz & @eddymakaveli) have found that @Fluffy has shown no transphobic/homophobic tendencies in the OOC space. His characters are well within our rules and continue to maintain such. The GitHub conversation was taken out of context, and upon further review of it, we found that it was simply a miscommunication. No one is at fault for this. The Discord interaction provided, as stated, is not enough to warrant any OOC action because Fluffy was simply answering a question that was posted publicly. The mention of the LOOC conversations was deliberated on, but since you both ( @La Villa Strangiato and Fluffy) agreed on Fluffy's recollection of the interaction, we've decided that this was: Not explicit enough to get the point across that you were uncomfortable with the misgendering; and We cannot do much else without solid evidence, which has not been provided. The interaction between Levi Kersaavi and Deshan Baral has been inspected closely and we believe that until the point of this complaint, it was firmly an IC issue as it was not otherwise communicated to Fluffy. However, with the input here from both Fluffy and @Nol4, the IC misgendering/deadnaming of Levi Kersaavi should stop. This was already agreed to so there is no point in going into any more detail here. Overall, we believe that this is an IC issue. However, we'd like to extend the opportunity to LVS to make it clear here and now that you are not comfortable with your characters being deadnamed/misgendered. If you are "fine" with it then it is firmly an IC issue. If you are not fine with it, make it known now. If Fluffy continues, then it would be a violation of the first rule "Don't be a dick." We will be leaving this open to allow time for either LVS or Nol to make clear their preference, otherwise, we consider this resolved.
La Villa Strangiato Posted March 20 Author Posted March 20 The long and short of it is "please do not deliberately misgender my character, Fluffy". However, I understand that you did not do it on purpose now, and I will be more clear and open about how something along those lines made me uncomfortable in the future.
ReadThisNamePlz Posted March 27 Posted March 27 I meant to close this a few days ago, but since it has sat for a week with no necessary followup - I will close it now.
Recommended Posts