I do agree, I was actually trying to make the point that it works both ways. Let me rephrase my point as I don't think we actually disagree at all here.
I think people can be awful to each other and phrase things in a horrible that is designed to upset people. I also think, as you'll have to bear with me on this, that people can engage with someone in a confrontational way like that in order to press buttons to get a read on them, and generally I want to give room for that to be able to exist here, as long as it doesn't cross the line. No racial slurs, sexism, transphobia etc, and also not overly personal. "Your argument is fucking stupid" might be rude and even get someone upset, but I am okay with that sentence and would allow it. "You're fucking stupid" is a different sentence and entirely more personal, that I don't want to see.
Holistically, what I want to really get to is for people to be able to be confrontational with each other, without it being personal. So afterwards, they can leave it there and not have to mend bridges or pick up the pieces. I think it's a really tough line to be honest. To use the last game as an example, I do think there is an element of people engaging with Flower in a way that they know will upset her, because they want to make a point because they dislike, I dunno, her whole approach to the game. That, I would say, is not great. But I can't make rules or legislate that. As long as it's relevant to the game, and not personal in nature, it's fair game, simply because if I do create a rule against this or that, if gives too much room for things that can or can't be covered under it, and then the whole game just falls in on itself. I'm trying to be very careful about what precedents get set.
Now, the easy answer to that is to say "Flower, just don't let it get to you". And I do think, on some level, it gets to her too much, and her reaction is disproportionate, and goes too far. But there's what I see, and what she sees, and those may not be the same, right. So my answer is not to tell Flower that she just needs to control herself better. It's to try and remove the personal angle from all of this - so that in future, maybe Flower can be better equipped to deal with it better, and similarly, her interlocutors can engage with her properly, and not try to play wind up to get what reactions they want.
That's the goal, anyway. That's what I'm really getting at with "people just need to have better control over their emotions". I'm applying that statement to both sides of the equation here, not just the side that it seems more apparently aimed at, if that makes any sense.
I think people can be awful to each other and phrase things in a horrible that is designed to upset people. I also think, as you'll have to bear with me on this, that people can engage with someone in a confrontational way like that in order to press buttons to get a read on them, and generally I want to give room for that to be able to exist here, as long as it doesn't cross the line. No racial slurs, sexism, transphobia etc, and also not overly personal. "Your argument is fucking stupid" might be rude and even get someone upset, but I am okay with that sentence and would allow it. "You're fucking stupid" is a different sentence and entirely more personal, that I don't want to see.
Holistically, what I want to really get to is for people to be able to be confrontational with each other, without it being personal. So afterwards, they can leave it there and not have to mend bridges or pick up the pieces. I think it's a really tough line to be honest. To use the last game as an example, I do think there is an element of people engaging with Flower in a way that they know will upset her, because they want to make a point because they dislike, I dunno, her whole approach to the game. That, I would say, is not great. But I can't make rules or legislate that. As long as it's relevant to the game, and not personal in nature, it's fair game, simply because if I do create a rule against this or that, if gives too much room for things that can or can't be covered under it, and then the whole game just falls in on itself. I'm trying to be very careful about what precedents get set.
Now, the easy answer to that is to say "Flower, just don't let it get to you". And I do think, on some level, it gets to her too much, and her reaction is disproportionate, and goes too far. But there's what I see, and what she sees, and those may not be the same, right. So my answer is not to tell Flower that she just needs to control herself better. It's to try and remove the personal angle from all of this - so that in future, maybe Flower can be better equipped to deal with it better, and similarly, her interlocutors can engage with her properly, and not try to play wind up to get what reactions they want.
That's the goal, anyway. That's what I'm really getting at with "people just need to have better control over their emotions". I'm applying that statement to both sides of the equation here, not just the side that it seems more apparently aimed at, if that makes any sense.
I will give you a gift if you pull that off
