pikadave465.bsky.social
"The Pika who was on Cherry Limeade"
Splatoon competitor and content creator | they/he
Coach for @whiprays-spl.bsky.social
Find my platforms and resources on my Linktree: https://linktr.ee/pikadave465
Icon by @eenyee.bsky.social
497 posts
1,195 followers
349 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
sick movement
comment in response to
post
ayo????? congrats wtf
comment in response to
post
Definitely. I appreciate this post being put out there! I don't know what's currently in the air to get people thinking about the state of the community and how we act basically daily for the past little bit now but I'm not complaining lol. Lots of good discussions going on.
comment in response to
post
Like with what Popgun said, you can't give a time limit on when or if the community will ever be okay with them again, so the community needs to be able to communicate that. Currently especially when those banned are promised a group to play with once "free" again, that whole check gets circumvented
comment in response to
post
To properly answer your question lol, it ultimately comes around to those being unbanned truly showing and/or explaining the efforts they've gone through to understand how they messed up and why they won't again, and importantly giving the community the time and means to respond to that as well.
comment in response to
post
In some ways I recognize it's easiest and not the worst to let people back in, watch if they mess up again and then just drop the hammer again if so, but that often feels icky and can be hard to monitor especially given that oftentimes those who earn bans mostly stick to private circles.
comment in response to
post
This idea sounds like a logistical nightmare that might be unreasonable, but it would be interesting if there was some way to gauge community-wide approval or opinion on whether or not to give people another chance in. I feel like this would urge people to *show* what they've done to improve.
comment in response to
post
The latter of those is especially volatile if said group is not the most trustworthy themselves lol. And I hate to be that guy but usually when just a few people allow someone back in it's because they're higher level and have the influence or resources to do so.
comment in response to
post
Everyone's saying that there needs to be some proof of change and I agree, but I think the question is what that proof looks like and how it is accepted. What bothers me historically is either people claiming to do something and declaring themselves changed, or a small friend group speaking for them
comment in response to
post
It's a valuable experience to hear about and it's perfectly readable and that's all that really matters. Oftentimes especially with "divisive" stuff like this it means a lot to just have different stories and perspectives out there in general. It gives people somewhere to start thinking and talking.
comment in response to
post
For someone to do work like this they have to be passionate about it so they want to do their best. I'm sure many would love feedback and constructive criticism! That's how anything gets better. It is foolish to wish people like this away. We would be (and previously were) way worse off without them
comment in response to
post
It's comical how many times over the years I've seen TOs accused of being greedy or some other ill-will. There isn't shit to be gained here. That's not to say all community contributors are saints, just remember that they and their work exist within and strive to grow the same community that you do.