[Suggestion] DNC Addendum

[TheBlackThrone]

I want to recommend an addendum be added to the DNC and maybe a rewrite of the DNC to better clarify it because some GMs are confused by it.

DNCs happen for various reasons, and when they do happen, it is no one else’s business why they happen, what caused it to happen, and why those individuals were involved.

Here is a link to the DNC Rules:  here

The way the DNC is supposed to go is that neither person on DNC can talk about the other person in threads, PMs, discords, etc. They are literally not to exist to the other person. However, people do talk. The offender will complain to their friends and try and seek sympathy. It happens.

The addendum that I want to propose is anyone getting involved or talking about the matters of a DNC with the other person involved in the DNC be held accountable. If the person is siding with a could-be offender in order to downplay the victim’s decision for blocking the person, then they should be held accountable. It is not anyone’s business why a DNC happens and no one should have the right to give their opinion about a person’s decision to do it.

It is highly insensitive when someone who has another person blocked is told by that person’s friend that they had no issues with the offender and whatever the offender has done has not happened to them. If DNCers are not allowed to talk about it, then what gives that person the right to talk about it, or to even share their opinion about the situation?

As of right now Elliquiy staff do not find this behavior offensive to the victim. This means that this has probably happened before and nothing was ever done about it, or nothing is done about it. It is just allowed to happen. With how things are currently, if I am aware of a DNC between two users and one of them is my friend. I could easily tell the person who is not my friend, “I don’t see what the big deal is. So-and-so was that way with you, but So-and-so was never that way with me. Not my problem.”

That behavior is terrible especially if the situation, which resulted in the DNC was a serious one. Harassment; stalking; abuse; if I act like the above quote with a could-be victim of these situations, I am first of all, no better than the offender on DNC; and secondly, I just made that person’s life on Elliquiy miserable. People set up DNCs between each other, as I previously mentioned, for various reasons and it is not my business or anyone’s business to get involved, share my opinion, or try and instigate matters. Everyone should do their best to remain noncommittal and those who choose not to remain noncommittal, should be dealt with by staff because it contributes to a toxic environment.

So I really want to suggest that the DNC rules get an addendum where nothing like this happens, and if it does and it is reported, it won’t be dismissed as nothing. Because it is not nothing. The goal should be not to aggravate the situation that resulted in the DNC and help maintain the integrity of this site’s role playing atmosphere by not choosing sides and not contributing to the assassination of a person’s character.

[Jag]

A DNC is not a shunning.  It is not intended to be a shunning.  A DNC is put in place when two people have shown themselves to be unable to interact civilly.  As per the rules of the site, we do not tolerate people who abuse or victimize others. When we find that someone has acted in such a way, they are no longer welcome here, as evidenced by the Serious Suspensions thread; DNCs are a matter of maintaining civility.

If a GM has a game large enough or configured in such a way that two people with a DNC do not have to interact in any way, then it is perfectly acceptable for both parties to be in the same game.

If the game is not large enough, or configured in that way, then the GM must make a decision.  They are allowed to make that decision using any criteria that they like, including how well they get along with the respective individuals, or even first-come, first-served.  They are allowed to state what their decision is, and how they came to it.

They also have the option to revisit that decision, should circumstances change, such as the game becoming large enough to accommodate the two individuals.

Staff does not, and will not micromanage communications between people to the point that you are requesting.

[TheBlackThrone]

A DNC is not a shunning.  It is not intended to be a shunning.  A DNC is put in place when two people have shown themselves to be unable to interact civilly.  As per the rules of the site, we do not tolerate people who abuse or victimize others. When we find that someone has acted in such a way, they are no longer welcome here, as evidenced by the Serious Suspensions thread; DNCs are a matter of maintaining civility.

If a GM has a game large enough or configured in such a way that two people with a DNC do not have to interact in any way, then it is perfectly acceptable for both parties to be in the same game.

If the game is not large enough, or configured in that way, then the GM must make a decision.  They are allowed to make that decision using any criteria that they like, including how well they get along with the respective individuals, or even first-come, first-served.  They are allowed to state what their decision is, and how they came to it.

They also have the option to revisit that decision, should circumstances change, such as the game becoming large enough to accommodate the two individuals.

Staff does not, and will not micromanage communications between people to the point that you are requesting.

So in the above example, if I was to say what was quoted to someone, and then that someone reported me. What you're saying is you'll do nothing because you don't see it as offensive?

In the example above in the quote, that would be in violation of Rule 2.

[Jag]

It depends on the context of the entire conversation. One sentence is not enough to determine if "dirty laundry" was aired.

[TheBlackThrone]

All right; I must have been confused then about what level the DNC was on. Because I had a situation with a violator of rule 1, and the staff had advised me to DNC the person. So I thought harassment, stalking, and abuse only constituted a DNC and nothing more serious unless the offender attempted to contact me while on DNC. So if you're saying "it depends," then I guess it is subjective to what the staff believe is offensive and not to what the victim believes is offensive. But all right; that makes sense.

I guess just clarifying the DNC for GMs would be the suggestion. We can clarify it here, but it is still written the way it is in the rules page.

[Jag]

A DNC is used to maintain civility on Elliquiy, as previously stated, not to deal with harassment, stalking, and/or abuse.

Staff will address personal matters you have privately. You will receive a PM shortly.