I'm concerned by both the text of this resolution and the precedent it would set.
Solorni admitted that she engaged in some behavior that was wrong. She should not have done what she did, which she acknowledges, and she is leaving the game as a result. However, it is not permitted to author a WA resolution about the behavior that she engaged in, so the author has taken some creative liberties to get around that rule.
The resolution, accuses Solorni of a) exploiting "at risk" nations, b) that her tenure in Balder was built on such exploitations, c) that Solorni represents a security threat to Balder, and d) that Solorni has been "summarily exiled" from numerous regions.
All of these are overstatements and exaggerations at best, and malicious distortions at worst. The referenced statement from Europeia says that they received allegations that Solorni "initiated strategic relationships to manipulate players and secure their loyalty", but not that such allegations were proven. Moreover, nowhere does Europeia assert that the allegations are that Solorni primarily targeted "at risk" players - merely that she "seemingly initiated strategic relationships to manipulate players and secure their loyalty". There's another word for that - politics. Europeia also does not allege that manipulating people is Solorni's sole claim on power, nor that that is the source of her rise in Balder. The author's decision to make that claim themselves is deeply troubling; female players are frequently accused of having no actual skills but relying on feminine wiles to get ahead.
Finally, Solorni was banned at her own request, as part of her resignation from the game. It's disingenuous to describe that as a summary exile; she would not be the first person to find it easier to remain gone if she were banned.
I have no wish to minimize what Solorni did. But I am concerned about the mob mentality that is leading to stripping away the legitimacy of everything she did, and earned, and was, because of a fuck-up. And I am also concerned about the language used in this specific proposal to repeal her commendation, and how easily it slides between fact and fiction to try to make its case.
Thank you for explaining your vote at length. I do appreciate this because it shows that your reading of the proposal was very different from my own. Ultimately people are going to believe what they're going to believe, and this resolution may very well give some people the wrong idea. I don't think I agree that those points are very exaggerated, they are quite true in many respects, and because of my own experience and knowledge I had a sense for the degree to which they were true or not. Many people would not have the same sense. It's fair to say then that that language could have been further adjusted. The result of this is that she will be summarily banned from many regions, and exiled from the community. The "mob" mentality you described is actually evidence of this fact.
Manipulation is something used in politics. My reading of the announcement, and the only way to understand it as something that would concern administration, is that the manipulation existed outside the bounds of the game, and was therefore not just "political" in nature. Because those manipulation nevertheless benefited her politically, that is where the obvious IC/OOC line was crossed and this becomes fair game, as an in-game matter. That is where I am principally staking my support for the repeal.
Those at risk nations are referring to the minors that were abused. The people behind these nations could potentially lack judgement or maturity that was expected of Rach.
Unfortunately you can't directly cite what Rach did due to SC rules, however Rach abused NS to get these connections which then led to the abuse of aforementioned 'at-risk' nations. This abuse could be potentially be linked to strategic planning to gain power or control over people.
Yes Rach acknowledged they were wrong, however they had to, at least to some extent, knew what they were doing and proceeded to do so anyway.
Rach contributed to this community but it is hard to defend any part of those contributions when an event like this occurs. This isn't a matter of if this or another repeal will pass, it's a matter of when, and what side you want to be on when it does.
Edit - I'm going to lose my mind if my phone auto corrects ''nations" to "nation's" again
There's a very good reason that you can't use OOC stuff in these resolutions. I do not believe that it is unfortunate this is a rule, nor do I believe that OOC actions require a resolution like this. In this regard I agree wholeheartedly with SillyString, we shouldn't start to think that we must go above and beyond administrative consequences, such as drafting condemnations. This situation though is one I distinguish from that, which is why I am supporting it.
Tlomz is also right that it's happening with our without us. That also is not necessarily a compelling reason on its own for us to take action, and I appreciate that TNP is independent in this way as well, and does not do the popular or expected thing for the sake of it. I do not believe that the wider gaming community is wrong about this, however. This time it is going to happen, I believe it should happen, and I do not think we should stand in the way of it for a principle I do not believe is even at stake here. We do not have to buck the "mob" for the sake of it just as we do not have to abide by it just because they make some noise. We should always do what should be done in any given situation. We're not all in agreement here, and that's fine.
Rach admitted to sexting with one minor - that's it. Allegations about her abusing multiple minors are fabricated. Euro doesn't claim she did that.
Facts matter and getting this right matters. Like I said, she fucked up. But the vitriol and speculation is bordering on farcical.
Added this in during my post. I'm not sure if Tlomz did a bad job of explaining this, or if he actually thinks this, but I do not believe this either. It seemed clear from my reading the abuse was strictly manipulation and not of the same nature as what she confessed to doing. I don't believe this is as misunderstood in TNP as it may be in other places, but I wanted to make it clear that I don't subscribe to this notion, nor do I believe it has to be true for a reasonable person to nevertheless decide the other matters administration brought up are compelling. The report is why I am firmly in support of this repeal. The problem with the repeal having to avoid OOC descriptions is that it puts two very different offenses in the same bucket, and going back to my earlier point about SillyString observing misleading conclusions coming out of the resolution, this combining language is probably why some may erroneously believe there's multiple victims of the kind Solorni confessed to. Again, I really appreciate SillyString laying it out the way she did, there was definitely more nuance that while not convincing enough for me, could be helpful in guiding others on this matter.
