Gloves Off

[anonniemouse]

Please use this post for discussion of those contentious, murky, triggering issues too complex to discuss/moderate on the main post.

Note that this post is NOT a free-for-all and will still be modded for slurs, namecalling, doxxing and trolling. But fair warning that it will not be moderated for discussion of issues some find triggering (trans issues, mental illness, etc.) and that if you choose to participate here, you do so at your own risk.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, I thought all the was clearly orchestrated as well.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a stretch.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it really isn't. Andy is very good at using such tactics, and has been known to send himself hostile anon asks, and even hack his own blog. I put nothing past him. I think the Gloves Off forum and the Pit have him worried. He can't hide if we're watching.

[(Anonymous)]

So Andy sent Meg here, knowing TF's treatment of her would cause TB and KQ to get pissed off, which would in turn piss of the comm, which would then prompt TB to stop blogging about him?

I'm not buying it. I believe he sends himself anon asks and faked the hacking, but I simply don't believe his powers of prediction are that good, even if he's here commenting and fomenting upset.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I think Andy does a lot more flailing and trying to fling rumors/rewrites than he does brilliant predictive planning. He's not the Evil Genius he sometimes plays at being.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It doesn't make any sense because you're making it far too complicated.

Look at it this way: Andy sent Meg here. How was the comm going to react?

- If the anons attacked Meg, Andy won.

- If the anons were polite to Meg but refused to believe her, Meg would complain that people were disrespectful of her and her adult abilities, and Andy won.

- If the anons believed Meg, Andy won.

Andy didn't need superhuman predictive abilities: he only needed to put the comm in a lose-lose situation, so that *whatever* happened, he could exploit it to his own benefit. Creating such situations is a basic manipulation technique, which Andy has been successfully using for years.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

+2

Nicely done Nonnie

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. He must be rubbing his nasty little hands in glee that it's affected TB and Abbey too.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly the point I was trying to make above. Andy is no evil genius, but he knows how to take advantage of an opportunity to manipulate, and we gave him one. Getting TB and Abbey into it was just gravy for him.

[(Anonymous)]

we gave him one

I wouldn't put it that way, because what happened was not due to any failure on Anons' part. It was something that was *bound* to happen sooner or later, because the weakness Andy exploited is the very existence of the comm itself. A comm which exists to discuss Andy's abuse cannot immediately ban his suspected current victims without losing all credibility by presenting itself as nothing more than an echo chamber. But if it lets said suspected current victims speak up, then the mess that happened is unavoidable. It was only a matter of time and opportunity before Andy took advantage of this conundrum.

[(Anonymous)]

I stand corrected. You are right. And it's often hard to spot him until after the fact. I suspect it will happen again.

[(Anonymous)]

This still seems like it requires too much forethought. His MO is more short-term nastiness combined with total lack of regret. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he was behind some of the nastier anons Meg and TB seem to have received, but him actually predicting our self-policing crisis seems unlikely. I can even believe that Meg came here of her own volition ( I would in her position). Something doesn't have to be planned by him to still work out in his favor.

[(Anonymous)]

him actually predicting our self-policing crisis seems unlikely

You can't be serious. Playing on people's self-policing is a HUGE part of his MO. It's the sole reason why he hasn't been driven off Tumblr fandom, for example: he knows that he just has to say the right SJ buzzwords and people will police themselves. He has no morality himself, but he's shown again and again that he's perfectly aware that most other people have moral principles, and that he can get what he wants from them if he can just manage to push those buttons.

Not to forget that this comm is an extension of FFA, and Andy had plenty of time and opportunity to learn there that nonnies will eagerly eat each other if you just throw them the right bones.

I'm all for not making him smarter than he is, but we shouldn't make him stupider than he is either. When something happens which looks exactly like stuff he's engineered many times before, it's not at all a stretch to suspect he may have had a hand in it.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Fair enough-- I stand corrected.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think you mean "AYRT", not "SA", unless you're agreeing with yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

In the years since I've been away from ansy, both before blogging publicly (when I was watching Fandom Wank and fending off mastodons and triceratops) and after speaking out...

Damn near every time something has gone down like this - escalating in bizarre and exceptionally fast ways, derails going into spin cycles of people pissed off at each other, weird and angry anons...

It always comes out later that Andy was behind it.

I have NO idea if Meg was directed or not and I don't care to speculate on her at this time. But I absolutely think that Andy's signature moves have happened here. His style is so recognizable, especially when you've lived it.

Currently I'm sad that TB is being raked over the coals - I just don't think the reaction here has been in proportion to what she said. Again, just my opinion, ymmv. I think this has been an incredibly effective distraction.

I don't think the AA blogs are "eating each other" and I don't think TB is leaving for good. I think it is a case of Andy, one way or another, sowing discord and making trouble.

-KQ

[(Anonymous)]

Andy, not ansy. Seriously, WTF autocorrect?

-KQ

[(Anonymous)]

KQ for the win!

And I hate auto correct.

[(Anonymous)]

Things did escalated very quickly. I understand where the hurt is coming from from all sides and hope everything calms back down a bit once everyone has had a bit of a breather.

[(Anonymous)]

Not much chance of that, Del's just joined in *groans*

[(Anonymous)]

No, if anything we've been supportive of TB.

-cap bunny

[(Anonymous)]

I disagreed with Tea Blogger's post, but I really value all of the work they have done. I don't want them off the internet and I don't want anyone to be the slightest bit nasty to them.

I sent them a message to that effect, too. I think disagreements about the right way to handle sensitive issues are pretty much inevitable, but can be done in a constructive way.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen maybe two or three comments I'd describe as nasty or snarky, and all the rest are, "I disagree" or "What's going on?" or relatively civil things of that nature. Sounds like she's getting really nasty anons though, which is too bad.

Based on the comments here, I'd guess it's probably one or two people sending them all.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the main issue with TB's original post is that as another anon pointed out, no matter which way we respond to Meg, Andy wins. Not everyone responded to her in an optimal way, but even if they had, Meg still would have been disappointed or upset -- unless we actually accepted her interpretation of Andy as a benevolent force.