|
The eventual actual apology by Goodman Games that they made after their rambling videopology thing was actually quite good, with clear, actionable steps to improve and a clear cutting of ties.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I’m genuinely curious, what are the apologies that this thread had accepted/not gotten angry at? It seems like every potential apology this thread has seen is deemed insufficient and insulting, and I’m wondering if there has been an apology that actually has been seen as a god faith effort. An actual impassioned spontaneous apology immediately after The Event holds more weight than one that reads like it was written by your brand manager a week after the fact. Also something that shows more action and contriteness than "I'm talking to someone and I'm gonna do a thing I promise."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I’m genuinely curious, what are the apologies that this thread had accepted/not gotten angry at? It seems like every potential apology this thread has seen is deemed insufficient and insulting, and I’m wondering if there has been an apology that actually has been seen as a god faith effort. I admit I am new to the thread, but in most cases, these types of apologies read like someone trying to A) retain power and B) end the conversation. A real apology, ie, a genuine attempt to atone (which in theory is what an apology is supposed to signify), should do neither.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
I feel like most of the "Zak truthers" were forgiven after they realized they were being used.
moths fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Apr 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Warthur posted:But there's something which is even more important than the ideas presented in an apology, and that's that the apology should sound like a sincere thing that the person in question actually believes, and this robotic, overly-polished PR text which Adam probably worked up using examples offered by his therapist absolutely doesn't sound sincere! "Apologising" without saying what you did wrong will always sound insincere because it is, in fact, insincere. Here's why: You're refusing to admit fault for the specific actions that you performed, by deflecting your thoughts and feelings toward remorse about the results of those actions. "I'm sorry I hurt you / let you down / upset you /etc" is not "I'm sorry for what I did". And someone refusing to even say what those actions were isn't even admitting that to themselves. A competent counsellor will tell you this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Warthur posted:IActions speak louder than words and Adam's actions in the livestream are loud enough to drown out anything he says about them in future. This sort of gives away the game. The thread's spent two pages or so now talking about improper apology construction, but why? There is no such thing as an acceptable apology (at least in this case). Just declare the guy persona non grata. Like, I'm not vested in this, I never heard of Koebel til about three days ago, but why the roundtable panel analysis of apology formatting if it's fully irrelevant? Is it just the fascination of a slow-motion train wreck? I get that, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
moths posted:I feel like most of the "Zak truthers" were forgiven after they realized they were being used. yea this community (I don't know literally about 'this thread' special) has been willing to accept 'aw poo poo I was an idiot and got used by Zak, I'm so sorry I was an idiot' from a few people, and Goodman Games had an especially solid one (after an initial weak rear end one that got them a lot of distrust, even). It's not actually that hard to just say what you're sorry for and not couching it in five layers of 'if you were hurt' or 'those I offended' weasel words
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
theironjef posted:This sort of gives away the game. The thread's spent two pages or so now talking about improper apology construction, but why? There is no such thing as an acceptable apology (at least in this case). Just declare the guy persona non grata. Like, I'm not vested in this, I never heard of Koebel til about three days ago, but why the roundtable panel analysis of apology formatting if it's fully irrelevant? Is it just the fascination of a slow-motion train wreck? I get that, I guess. That’s pretty much how I feel
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
I think it's more frustration with the weird premise of a non-pology where shitbags never acknowledge what they did. There's this infuriating giggle of re-offending, a reminder underlining that he still thinks he's in the right, but understands that for some dumb reason he's got to publically feign regret. It's insulting that he thinks we're stupid enough to fall for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
theironjef posted:This sort of gives away the game. The thread's spent two pages or so now talking about improper apology construction, but why? There is no such thing as an acceptable apology (at least in this case). Just declare the guy persona non grata. Like, I'm not vested in this, I never heard of Koebel til about three days ago, but why the roundtable panel analysis of apology formatting if it's fully irrelevant? Is it just the fascination of a slow-motion train wreck? I get that, I guess. There is no model for correct public apology because the court of public opinion doesn’t really have statutes or rehabilitation. Michael Vick committed his crimes 10 years ago and people still argue about whether he can honorarily captain in the pro bowl. There’s always going to be Internet clout for being the last person to forgive or the first person to call out. It’s how social networks that are worth sharing work, but no one is monetized improvement or making victims whole (except sometimes sending the money.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Is the concern that he's not saying "I'm sorry that I did [thing, explicitly delineated]"? Apologies do not loving work like this. Apologizing that people got hurt is absolutely putting the responsibility for the whole thing on the people who were hurt. I know some people itt seem to be arguing that apologies are not being accepted, but that's because no one takes loving responsibility anymore. Saying "gee sorry that I hurt people" instead of "sorry for what I actually did because it was inherently wrong regardless of whether someone was "hurt" or not". Otherwise, it still kind of sounds like he's sorry not for what he did, but that he got called out for it. I mean, it's taken almost 2 weeks before we got to the point of "well, I'm going to step back from everything for a while" and only because it didn't blow over for him. That's what is telling for me... everything about this smells like if it had just blown over, or god forbid, Far Verona S2 kept going, NOTHING AT ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ADAM. That seems like a big issue to me, but I'm open to considering other viewpoints, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
No apology's really good enough, although his definitely could be much, much better, because it'll be six months or a year before you can see if he's consistently been a better person who seems to understand what he did wrong and so on. Unfortunately people can't just see the future, although they can certainly guess that he'll just bumble along exactly as before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
The best/ only real apology is changed behaviour, but the truth of changed behaviour is impossible to measure immediately. I do feel that there needs to be a conversation had about what the point of "apologies" are though, but possibly not here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 08:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I do feel that there needs to be a conversation had about what the point of "apologies" are though, but possibly not here. I don't get this mindset, it seems much more in line with, "But.... he apologized???? Why is anyone mad???" than anything else. Like there have been pretty good breakdowns about why his apologies are poo poo. The 'point' of apologies is still intact. His is just poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
No as in "what are they for". Not as in "why apologise" but to really drill down and wonder "what is the reason you are doing this thing". How can we truly make recompense/ hope to do better, what makes an apology that to one person seems sincere and to another seem false. What is the purpose of it etc. I didn't mean "don't apologise for loving up" that'd be silly, just a wider question about what apologise are built to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 09:12
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:No as in "what are they for". Not as in "why apologise" but to really drill down and wonder "what is the reason you are doing this thing". How can we truly make recompense/ hope to do better, what makes an apology that to one person seems sincere and to another seem false. What is the purpose of it etc. Well sure but there seems to be a pretty wide general consensus of apologies being for an honest recognition of the transgression and a reasonable plan forward. This was neither, that's why it's bad. Like this situation doesn't introduce any grey area about what apologies are for, in my mind, because this one was exposed as a poor attempt to shift blame before we even knew of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The best/ only real apology is changed behaviour, but the truth of changed behaviour is impossible to measure immediately. First, you clearly express that you understand what you did. Second, you understand that what you did was wrong, and why. Third, that you regret that you took the actions that you did. Fourth, that this has sufficient authenticity in its presentation that the hearer feels you meant it. (Fifth, not always relevant, is steps to ameliorate the harm done.) There is also a lethal part you should not include, which is to make excuses for yourself. You're apologizing for what you did. If you're going to bring up ameliorating factors, it should be a subclause, and should tie in to the fifth point. In ordinary social interaction an apology is, in my view, an opportunity for forgiveness, so that a score can stop being tracked, so that a wrong can be mended. This gives people some wiggle room, both when dealing with anxiety/depression sorts of thoughts, and for where there are legitimate errors. You have the kind of tactical model where having the possibility for an apology being accepted means people will not (to use the recent phrase) double down every time they are wrong or others appear to have been harmed by them. An apology also demonstrates a sort of social cognition and communication, which I think can greatly accelerate the aspect you mention, involving changed behavior. It can also contextualize it: I stopped punching people because I realized it was wrong, not just "because I got bored with it" or "because Jim Croce stabbed me in the leg after I punched him, and I'm afraid of him." What makes that thing weird to read to me, is that it isn't clear who the gently caress he's talking to. (Probably the ever popular 'formless cloud on Twitter.') It seems to me that he should make two apologies. One to the person who he harmed (delivered in private) and another to his audience, which he seems to sort of be sidling up into the general area of without actually reaching. Instead he seems to be trying to SEO-optimize his apology, and SEO-optimization is not authentic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 09:37
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Well sure but there seems to be a pretty wide general consensus of apologies being for an honest recognition of the transgression and a reasonable plan forward. This was neither, that's why it's bad. Oh I didn't mean explicitly as regards this one, simply that this is but one of many apology conversations we keep seeing. Nessus posted:What makes that thing weird to read to me, is that it isn't clear who the gently caress he's talking to. (Probably the ever popular 'formless cloud on Twitter.') It seems to me that he should make two apologies. One to the person who he harmed (delivered in private) and another to his audience, which he seems to sort of be sidling up into the general area of without actually reaching. Instead he seems to be trying to SEO-optimize his apology, and SEO-optimization is not authentic. Thank you for this!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 10:50
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh I didn't mean explicitly as regards this one, simply that this is but one of many apology conversations we keep seeing. It happens because it's so loving weird to watch someone flounder around gormlessly digging a deeper hole instead of just accepting that they hosed up and acted like an rear end in a top hat and should feel bad about it, that people aren't really sure how to process it. And being tradgame goons, we're defaulting to trying to make rules about how the process would ideally work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
His apology reads to me like, 'Hello! These are the magic words I say to make what I did not wrong anymore! Please continue giving me money!' Just as gross are the people fawning over him going, 'Awwwwwww, poor baby, this is a totally normal mistake that could have happened to anyone!'
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
Have their been other incidents with Adam Koebel that had come to light before this? Not that he gets a pass as a "first time offender" or anything, but it seems like most of these industry shitheads, there's a pattern of behavior there. In some cases, like the whole Zak S. bullshit, people have been screaming it from the rooftops for ages before everyone collectively started taking them seriously. Others, like CA Suleiman, you had more rumors and scattered stories among freelancers (at least, that was how I saw it; maybe these were better known than I had visibility to). Of course, this happening might just be the first domino that prompts others to come forward with stories. That happens a lot too in these cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
Desiden posted:Of course, this happening might just be the first domino that prompts others to come forward with stories. That happens a lot too in these cases. Having seen what happened, gently caress this guy. I don't need more evidence. I hope he does better in the future, but I won't find out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:It happens because it's so loving weird to watch someone flounder around gormlessly digging a deeper hole instead of just accepting that they hosed up and acted like an rear end in a top hat and should feel bad about it, that people aren't really sure how to process it. And being tradgame goons, we're defaulting to trying to make rules about how the process would ideally work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:03
|
|
|
Warthur posted:And that is the last thing that should happen, because best case scenario, we derail ourselves jabbering about these rules rather than the incident in question, worst case scenario is we actually end up agreeing on those rules. Congrats: we just created a script for malicious people to use which will fool us into thinking they're sincere. How does that help again? I don't think that's a reasonable thing to be worried about. It's extremely easy to make a sincere apology (and thus just as easy to fake one), but nobody who needs to ever seems to manage it. And anyway, it's not like you can just keep trotting out the same scripted "proper" apology, because part of the script is necessarily not doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
How does Koebel demonstrate a pattern of improved behavior, given that many seen to want him to stop streaming?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
I personally don't see this as a persona non grata thing, I get those that never want to work with him again or wish to leave his games. But I don't particularly think less of those who keep playing with him so long as they themselves feel safe with him. This is just a rightful massive loss in reputation. It wouldn't shock me if R20 and maybe Wizards(lol) cease working with him after his current contractual obligations are up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Wonder if the Ironsworn site will take down Adam’s endorsement quote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Some people seem to be equivocating between "I'm sorry you felt hurt" and "I'm sorry I hurt you." I think the second one is perfectly fine: it shows an appropriate concern for the injured party and takes responsibility for the harm. I think his apology was fine as apologies go in terms of the content. Whether it's sincere or not, I don't know him well enough to judge. I have no interest in defending Koebel - the one interaction I ever had with him was him being a prick to me. I don't like his game, and I don't watch his streams. And what he did on that stream was way worse than I expected when I clicked the link.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:How does Koebel demonstrate a pattern of improved behavior, given that many seen to want him to stop streaming? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
That does not feel like a constructive answer...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:That does not feel like a constructive answer... If he stopped streaming that would demonstrate a pattern of improved behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
A real apology has three key components it needs to be acceptable. If it has all three, it's obviously fake. The only true apology is changed behavior. But it's important to never look for that because the apologizer should never be seen again. It's important for me here to say gently caress this guy. I'm not into what he did, it's lovely and bad. I'm just saying wouldn't it be easier and more productive to say "I have a zero tolerance policy and this guy is off the list forever now" than some weird "oh, so close, if he had just indicated remorse correctly while also hitting my inscrutable standard of seeming sincere about it"? I'm on team zero tolerance here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Remember when I said this? Dude's a creep and not worth discussing anymore Froghammer fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Apr 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 16:31
|
|
, screencapping because tweets might disappear or accounts might lock)
)
|
People can definitely change patterns, even long-standing ones, but in cases like this it’s up to the person changing to do the work, and find a way to convince people that the new pattern is the “real one”. If he spent some time with a therapist and such and painted a convincing picture of what he learned and how he changed, I might Consume His Content again, but I don’t feel like anyone owes him some bright line definition of what those changes or convincing picture would look like. People will know it when they see it, and maybe they never will. (My more generous feelings about rehabilitation and post-sentence treatment of convicts isn’t entirely consistent with this, I’m willing to admit.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:How does Koebel demonstrate a pattern of improved behavior, given that many seen to want him to stop streaming? He could show consistency. Again: if he is not safe to run new campaigns, he is not safe to run existing campaigns, if he is safe to run existing campaigns with new safeguarding measures, he's safe to run new ones. Handling them differently makes it look like he doesn't have a cohesive plan to actually improve his behaviour, and that he's just going through the motions to seek forgiveness whilst not actually denying himself any income. Of course, people have pointed out that he may have contractural arrangements with people, which leads into my second example... He could make it clear that this process of improvement is his number one priority, over and above honouring his current contractural commitments. Continuing to work off those contracts - and getting reimbursed for it - suggests that Adam is putting his professional standing and cashflow above consistently focusing on his process of improvement in his priority list. And any deprioritisation of that improvement suggests he's less sincere about it than he should be, especially given the extremity of the behaviour involved. You can only have one top priority, and if you are compromising your efforts to improve yourself in order to meet a contractural need, that means you put the contract above making yourself safe - because if making yourself safe was your top priority, the contract would be the thing you compromise on. That doesn't mean he has to leave the other parties in the contract in the lurch. GMing is a skill. GMing on a livestream is a particularly niche form of that skill. It is still not a unique skill. Adam could step down immediately from his existing campaigns and be replaced by another GM who takes up the story from where he left off no problem. I am sure that if Adam went to the people he has contracts with and said "Listen, I don't want your companies to have to take flak arising form my screwup, I am willing to help you find a replacement GM for these streams and stand down once they are found" they would at least consider it. Of course, that means that Adam loses his income, because apparently streaming is his day job now, which brings me to my third answer. He could demonstrate that he is willing to take on a certain level of personal hardship both as the consequences of his behaviour and as the price of making personal improvement his top priority. All the players in Far Verona have lost income by quitting the game. Shouldn't it primarily be Adam who suffers hardship as a result of his actions as opposed to others? Yes, it is a bad time indeed to be unemployed, but there is also never a good time, and if that unemployment is the result of you not being safe to be around co-workers, I don't think you have the right to expect to be allowed to continue in a job where you continue to be a danger. And by his own admission, Adam continues to be a danger to people he is in existing campaigns with. He admits that he is not safe. He admits that it is not safe for him to start new campaigns until he sorts his head out. He admits that it is not safe for him to continue to run his existing campaigns without putting in special new safeguards. If you heard that someone in a job in a position of responsibility needed to have new safeguarding measures put in place specifically because of their own behaviour, would you be thrilled by their continued employment, or wouldn't you be saying "Isn't it easier just to fire this guy?", just as Jef's saying that it'll be easier to just write this guy off as the trashlump he obviously is? Isn't the best way to keep those people safe to take the dangerous person - Adam - out of the equation? To go to a more extreme example, let's say after he exits jail Harvey Weinstein is bankrupt, has no accessible cash, and has no real track record in work outside of the context of movie production. Would it be OK for him to just continue producing movies then, even if the alternative involves significant hardship for him? EDIT: TBH I am deeply unlikely to want anything to do with the guy even if he does improve, as Jef points out it's easier to just say "Nope, I'm done with that" and move on to the plethora of people who have not done poo poo like this in the first place. I'm just effortposting to underline that there is no basic incompatibility between saying "I won't believe Adam unless he shows improved behaviour" and "I want Adam to gently caress off out of the livestreaming sphere so I don't have to see him again", because the latter demonstrates a commitment to the former. Warthur fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Apr 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Keep in mind, also, that momentary lapse of judgment wasn't credible as soon as we found out that he'd discussed character development with the player beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
I think for me to believe someone has any intent to change their behaviour, the first step is they need to own their mistake, and Koebel is not doing that, not really, as has been identified ad nauseam. He did not take full ownership of the gently caress-up until yesterday, and that kind of delay makes it difficult to trust in his sincerity. He should never have needed safety tools in place for that scenario--simulating rape is not an opt-out situation. It is never acceptable to do that, and the fact that he has done so on multiple occasions and is only now issuing the apology for either is a pretty serious indicator that he is apologizing now primarily because his reputation and friendships have been damaged. It should not have taken that to get an apology, regardless of whether or not the apology is good, sincere, or anything else. That he suggests that safety tools were not in place or he would have stopped is indicative that he expects players to inform him beforehand, hey I am not interested in roleplaying out nonconsensual sex, which is...a position he could take.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
I feel like it's really important to realize that this is a pattern and dude knows it and apologized for the single incident he got called on. He is actually not taking ownership of his gently caress-up (even as of yesterday), because from what we've seen that gently caress-up has been an ongoing thing for a pretty long while now! And I think that's really important to recognize because there very much is an attempt to play this off as a one-off, how could I have been so foolish sort of event. Which it's not. edit: And that's a damning thing against any apology. It didn't even take very long for people to call him out on this pattern, exposing his 'apology' as false and self-serving regardless of what you thought of its content before that. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 18:42
|
|