From the information presented here - it's not. And anyways, I don't need accurate information to make a point of principle: You cannot take sides between two people without having heard the arguments from both sides. Even so, there's every chance that both are lying - or biased - and you still cannot make a fact-based decision.
For which reason I insist that the best solution is to let adults sort out their own problems, and report back to the table when they have.
And if you like, that's bogus too - I don't know if they're adults either. But the principle still holds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
From the information presented here - it's not. And anyways, I don't need accurate information to make a point of principle: You cannot take sides between two people without having heard the arguments from both sides. Even so, there's every chance that both are lying - or biased - and you still cannot make a fact-based decision.
For which reason I insist that the best solution is to let adults sort out their own problems, and report back to the table when they have.
And if you like, that's bogus too - I don't know if they're adults either. But the principle still holds.
But why even post here if you're just lying? I understand that information filtered through certain perspectives can be biased one way or another, but to actively lie while seeking advice is... kinda moronic.
You're suggesting the OP just made up a situation in which one unnamed individual would look better than another unnamed individual for... what reason?
Like what would the OP actually get out of the lie? Attention on an anonymous platform? Vindication for the imaginary situation that wouldn't stand up if any of the actual players read the lie? There would be no reason for any of this.
It's one thing to take things with a grain of salt, but unless we're suggesting that every advice post on the forum is trolling, we do have to take the facts at face value. The facts of this argument are this:
1. One party admitted to harassing another out of game. He admitted it and tried to use his personal dislike of the other person to justify it.
2. OP has seen the screenshots of the discord thread and considers them serious/actionable.
3. They were bad enough that the player receiving the messages left the game.
We have to treat these three points that OP has said as facts, otherwise there's no point to any of these discussions. What we don't know is the source of why the two players never liked each other and the history of who instigated who--- who knows maybe the victim player did start it way back when?
But unfortunately, who's at fault in that personal relationship is not relevant to this discussions, because the parties involved are adults who should be able to control their feelings in a public setting or step away. J did not. It doesn't matter what the other player did in their personal relationship that drove a wedge between them-- you don't treat people like this.
With the information we know, it's a no brainer, and the information we don't know is almost wholly irrelevant because it couldn't justify the facts of what happened.
Silly "radical skepticism" is asserting beyond Russell's Teapot and into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride territory in the meta of this conversation.
Folks, the OP has had a constructive conversation here, and made choices and even reported back on their resolution despite the "critique." Whatever ax to grind one poster evidently has toward DMs seeking table management advice hasn't really gained any traction beyond a contemplation of the "if a tree falls in a forrest and no one's listening" koan.
It sounds like the situation has been resolved in a way that refutes whatever knee-jerk assumptions anyone has against the notion that people could be possibly reporting premises in good faith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You're suggesting the OP just made up a situation in which one unnamed individual would look better than another unnamed individual for... what reason?
I am not. That's a hypothetical.
Look, it's actually perfectly simple: You say I'm bogus, because I state that J, L and/or the OP could all be either lying, or biased, or both. Could be. Not saying they are, I'm saying none of us know (except the OP, who propably has some idea whether he, himself, is lying - he's likely to be entirely unaware of his own bias, however, we mostly are).
And I repeat, yet again, my point: Without solid information, no one should make judgement on others. If we assume everyone is being perfectly honest, then you, me and the OP do not know what went on between J and L. We don't. We have .... what was it again, J's word that L 'got angry, and cussed him out'. And L admitted that. And that's all we know. We do not have L's side of the story, and I'm sorry, but getting angry is totally legal. It's not a crime, or a sin - it's not even particularly rude.
Why did L get angry? We don't know. Maybe because he felt he was unfairly judged over a harmless joke. Maybe he said that to J, and J said something to L that he conveniently left out, when he told the OP that L cussed him out.
Regardless, there really is only one option here: Let them sort it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You're suggesting the OP just made up a situation in which one unnamed individual would look better than another unnamed individual for... what reason?
I am not. That's a hypothetical.
Look, it's actually perfectly simple: You say I'm bogus, because I state that J, L and/or the OP could all be either lying, or biased, or both. Could be. Not saying they are, I'm saying none of us know (except the OP, who propably has some idea whether he, himself, is lying - he's likely to be entirely unaware of his own bias, however, we mostly are).
And I repeat, yet again, my point: Without solid information, no one should make judgement on others. If we assume everyone is being perfectly honest, then you, me and the OP do not know what went on between J and L. We don't. We have .... what was it again, J's word that L 'got angry, and cussed him out'. And L admitted that. And that's all we know. We do not have L's side of the story, and I'm sorry, but getting angry is totally legal. It's not a crime, or a sin - it's not even particularly rude.
Why did L get angry? We don't know. Maybe because he felt he was unfairly judged over a harmless joke. Maybe he said that to J, and J said something to L that he conveniently left out, when he told the OP that L cussed him out.
Regardless, there really is only one option here: Let them sort it out.
Do you make this argument on every thread asking for advice?
Like, I don't know what you mean by 'solid information' that we might encounter here on the forums.
We are being asked, to the best of our ability, to lend our judgements to OP so they, to the best of their ability, can deal with this issue, and what, every responder is supposed to serenely reply with "nothing is true, everything is permitted"?
That is not a useful response. Arguing for that is less useful, especially as the issue has, according to OP, already been addressed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From the information presented here - it's not. And anyways, I don't need accurate information to make a point of principle: You cannot take sides between two people without having heard the arguments from both sides. Even so, there's every chance that both are lying - or biased - and you still cannot make a fact-based decision.
For which reason I insist that the best solution is to let adults sort out their own problems, and report back to the table when they have.
And if you like, that's bogus too - I don't know if they're adults either. But the principle still holds.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But why even post here if you're just lying? I understand that information filtered through certain perspectives can be biased one way or another, but to actively lie while seeking advice is... kinda moronic.
You're suggesting the OP just made up a situation in which one unnamed individual would look better than another unnamed individual for... what reason?
Like what would the OP actually get out of the lie? Attention on an anonymous platform? Vindication for the imaginary situation that wouldn't stand up if any of the actual players read the lie? There would be no reason for any of this.
It's one thing to take things with a grain of salt, but unless we're suggesting that every advice post on the forum is trolling, we do have to take the facts at face value. The facts of this argument are this:
1. One party admitted to harassing another out of game. He admitted it and tried to use his personal dislike of the other person to justify it.
2. OP has seen the screenshots of the discord thread and considers them serious/actionable.
3. They were bad enough that the player receiving the messages left the game.
We have to treat these three points that OP has said as facts, otherwise there's no point to any of these discussions. What we don't know is the source of why the two players never liked each other and the history of who instigated who--- who knows maybe the victim player did start it way back when?
But unfortunately, who's at fault in that personal relationship is not relevant to this discussions, because the parties involved are adults who should be able to control their feelings in a public setting or step away. J did not. It doesn't matter what the other player did in their personal relationship that drove a wedge between them-- you don't treat people like this.
With the information we know, it's a no brainer, and the information we don't know is almost wholly irrelevant because it couldn't justify the facts of what happened.
Silly "radical skepticism" is asserting beyond Russell's Teapot and into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride territory in the meta of this conversation.
Folks, the OP has had a constructive conversation here, and made choices and even reported back on their resolution despite the "critique." Whatever ax to grind one poster evidently has toward DMs seeking table management advice hasn't really gained any traction beyond a contemplation of the "if a tree falls in a forrest and no one's listening" koan.
It sounds like the situation has been resolved in a way that refutes whatever knee-jerk assumptions anyone has against the notion that people could be possibly reporting premises in good faith.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am not. That's a hypothetical.
Look, it's actually perfectly simple: You say I'm bogus, because I state that J, L and/or the OP could all be either lying, or biased, or both. Could be. Not saying they are, I'm saying none of us know (except the OP, who propably has some idea whether he, himself, is lying - he's likely to be entirely unaware of his own bias, however, we mostly are).
And I repeat, yet again, my point: Without solid information, no one should make judgement on others. If we assume everyone is being perfectly honest, then you, me and the OP do not know what went on between J and L. We don't. We have .... what was it again, J's word that L 'got angry, and cussed him out'. And L admitted that. And that's all we know. We do not have L's side of the story, and I'm sorry, but getting angry is totally legal. It's not a crime, or a sin - it's not even particularly rude.
Why did L get angry? We don't know. Maybe because he felt he was unfairly judged over a harmless joke. Maybe he said that to J, and J said something to L that he conveniently left out, when he told the OP that L cussed him out.
Regardless, there really is only one option here: Let them sort it out.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Do you make this argument on every thread asking for advice?
Like, I don't know what you mean by 'solid information' that we might encounter here on the forums.
We are being asked, to the best of our ability, to lend our judgements to OP so they, to the best of their ability, can deal with this issue, and what, every responder is supposed to serenely reply with "nothing is true, everything is permitted"?
That is not a useful response. Arguing for that is less useful, especially as the issue has, according to OP, already been addressed.