Skip to content
TORNLIFE More

A masterclass in gaslighting (and a fragile ego)

Started by Omanpx [1906686] on in General Discussion.

403 replies · 5.24k views · thread synced · 3 days ago · View on torn.com

Posts archived: 404 / 404 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch

Wenno [2757277] · #141

Honestly, with this response, I can't help but feel like those upvotes are just paid upvotes. The post just reads as cry for sympathy, like many of the other bogie posts and people just falling for it. The same shit happened with the web sock files. Hell, I think the same shit happens with any drama that happens where staff are perceived as the 'bad guys'. Saw it coming from a mile away. 

 

The post itself has no substance at all, it doesn't have any thought behind it. It's just a bunch of words all stuck together that people haven't read before upvoting. They just see big statement and think "oh yeah, that is a good bogie statement because lot of words". How dense do you have to be, to have a comment on a thread by an admin have a unanimous opinion against it about someone who barely any of us know, to then say that you stand by that decision that was made. How do you not sit back, and try and think of it in another perspective--a player's perspective? 

 

We have had people get in trouble for reporting too much. Now, you're f**king telling us to report with no evidence at all. So, you're asking us to risk getting in trouble for reporting, or risk getting in trouble for not reporting. Pick which you want to be punished for, I guess? We're playing a social game, and you're literally trying to discourage people from socialising. Why is someone being targeted just from trying to gain a merit? You literally say, in the same paragraph, that htr shouldn't have to prove those people are multis but he should be responsible for those extra accounts made? So... It's htr's responsibility to check, but it's also not htr's responsibility to check?

 

You literally can't make up the boneheads who believe these statements. I'm not a sociopath, I can empathise, but at the same time it just feels like these posts are for manipulating the community every time staff has a f**k up. To get them to ease up. And this is after the drama has died down quite a bit too, again manipulation 101 is timing your sob story to align with the drama fading away. I don't buy it. Conspiracy theory it may be, but I have not seen any improvement from staff after one of these sympathy dissertations yet. 

Landgull [3703758] · #142 · edited

No, I'm sorry but that is a bad take. I for one am happy to have a clearer picture of what the expectations are for players to detect multis, and I am sure I am not the only one who has been following this quietly hoping for that clarification. 

Prior to today's post, there was no way to know the expectations for players because they were not communicated, despite people repeatedly asking for clarification. Did it apply to just referrals, or also to loss selling? What about mugging? What if you win a hand of poker from a multi? There was no way to know because no-one would answer questions about it. Oman continuing to beat that dead horse did wind up getting at least some clarification provided to the community. I am thankful to both bogie and Oman for that clarification.

NightWing [1318799] · #144

Isnt the staff supposed to be unbiased?

 

and what happened to doing this all in "complete" transparency??

 

 

I can literally go to any 3rd party website and find "torn" accounts being sold are they still being "investigated"?

 

 

So many questions...

 

Community manager should be voted by Committee/top players ; someone who  has good ties with everyone on top.

 

or none should hold the position for more than 2 years, so we see "diversity" change and ofcourse their power should be limited.

 

 

"Admin" should not be hired by CM or because they vouched for them,  only purely based on skillset.

 

CM should only be the bridge b/w players and devs/owners, not playing judge,jury & executioner.

 

its 2026 AI has taken most of the "anti cheats" in highly competitive games; yet there will always be false bans which must be manually reviewed otherwise show goes on.

 

 

Said it before would say it again; there are sooo many people in this game who have worked at higher positions in gaming industry, their expertise should be consulted. Torn is very popular more than ever.

 

 

Tho Huge shout out to all the staff who are volunteers and dedicate time to make this game smooth for us.

 

 

Torn is a game where players want accountability :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

men [2737987] · #146

When people realize that they are keeping the game afloat with their money, shit will change. Same bullshit with the world politics at the moment.

Just stop spending your money and watch how quick everything flips around to better support those "minute" people.

It is literally no different than if people withdrew from supporting their world leaders. When the paychecks stop flowing, anxiety begins growing.

Flak [2091491] · #147

"Personally I am a little surprised that people are so upset we are strictly anti multi"

This is the sort of 'gaslighting' i think Oman was referencing. I don't think i've seen anyone say they are upset because you are anti-multi. This looks to me like another unfair characterisation of a matter some clearly feel is important.

I can't speak on specifics of the matter. But i do believe this alone helps to prove Oman point has some merit. 


NightWing [1318799] · #149

this opens the whole discussion;

 

if you get paid to work on this game; should have a seperate dev account + to play..

 

that is standard Industry practice. 

Klashnekoff [498900] · #150

The issue is, people see staff post and +vote, even if it's a terrible response so in their eyes the "sentiment" is that they are doing well when infact it's just brown nosers who see red name and go yes my lord. 

Clitasaurus [2059853] · #151

"A bunch of his mates" , most people aren't defending the player and hell some of them were making fun of him before the full picture was known. Just what he went through and the bullshit abetting rules and applying past legitimate scenarios and wondering why those weren't fedded but now it is when there hasn't been a rules change. So its incredible disingenuous to imply its just HTR friends who are speaking up on the situation. 

 

How does loss services not fall under the abetting? Its a paid service that encourages more energy used for more money gained. If they create multies and funnels that back to the main. The selling losses is the motivation to create the multi. So it has a financial reward for for creating a multi .

PTP_Enjoyer [2910173] · #152

You are using a strawman argument. The idea that the people were being anti multi hand nothing to do with what bogie was actually arguing, and therefore this point is completely irrelevant.

Bumbi [3177056] · #153

I don't agree with the idea that those multis being referred were so obvious, and HTR was in the wrong for not reporting it. He didn't have any evidence barring similar names, which isn't the smoking gun you think it is. bogie I think you forget you're looking at this from the lens of someone who has a lot of experience looking through fed reports, most players don't see things the same way you do. Barring someone like omanpx. If I were you I would just ban paying for referrals and be done with the whole thing, much easier and less messy. 

Kalisa [2014200] · #154

Do you honestly think bogie is going to be consistent on anything other than doubling down on bad staff decisions at this point? 

 

FFS, this whole thing stems from someone getting fedded for 'abetting', which bogie literally described as "Personally I think any reasonable player should stop and think "hang on let me just check if this is legit since I'm responsible for these extra accounts being made"., after ridiculing another player for actually trying to do that very thing. (Ignoring the fact that that's not abetting in the least.) 

 

bogie is as consistent as consulting a magic-8 ball. 

Gladion20 [1832984] · #155

Nothing, that’s why he had bogie and PJ. To handle the community so he doesn’t have to think about us except when it’s something super major or pertaining to a new update. 

At the end of the day, him meddling in bogie’s staff and rules would just muddy the waters even more. 

Flak [2091491] · #157

Where are the upset people then? The ones bogie refers to, The people upset that they are strictly anti-multi?

I think its a matter of implementation and framing, You can both hold a strict anti-multi stance and aim for level headed fairness.

If there is a discrepancy that upsets people, i think its unfair to frame that as 'Upset over strict anti-multi'

Unless they are actually upset because of the strict anti-multi stance.

---------------------------

Regardless, My criticism isn't about any specifics of the matter, I just wanted to highlight that saying things like that can be taken badly. If no other evidence, i took it badly. There are better ways he could have shared the same thoughts, imo.

But devils advocate, Maybe it was close enough and avoided the need for another paragraph. Im not gonna shout over the matter, Just sharing how it made me see things. 

WaywardSquid [2330087] Officer Officer · #158

I’ll take a stab at fielding this question since I have some experience in this area. 

  1. If you refer a friend, family member, or person known to you (the primary intent of a referral), you are stating to us you know them and that they are a legitimate account.
  2. If you seek out a new player who you don’t know and pay them money to get other accounts to sign up, and pay additionally to have those other accounts get more accounts to sign up with their referrals, you cannot state with certainty that those accounts are legitimate. This is a risky thing to do because you are relying solely on human nature. Will they be honest, or will the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars (holy grail to noobs) cause them to do anything for more money?
  3. If you get a random referral notification from someone you don’t know and have never spoken to, you did not solicit or cause this to happen. This is Pop’s scenario, and one that happens frequently. New signups are shown a screen with animations with random player names (“BrownBob left SillySue on the street!”) that they sometimes write in, or they enter a name or word that means something to them, or they think it’s the field where they choose their own name. This isn’t your responsibility and people are always encouraged to file a player report to have it checked if it feels weird. A PM to bogie isn’t a player report. 

 

Basically, all I can advise is be careful about soliciting referrals from people you don’t know, especially if you’re incentivizing them to make accounts for payment. Because yes, you bear some responsibility there. One of which is to file a report if it seems risky or odd. 

Additionally, the only people getting warnings for abuse of report function are people crashing out, or being deliberately pedantic or weaponizing reports to get someone else in trouble because their ass is inflamed and they want revenge. Trust me when I say we investigate 100 reports a day, it’s common to do quick checks that clear something like this. 

Hope this helps clarify. 

Omanpx [1906686] · #159

Finally had time to sit down and read this properly...

 

Players should not expect a response every time someone is jailed, the fedded archives are not a staff AMA and it has reached a point there where the expectations need to be tempered. 

 

It is genuinely exhausting to respond to some jailing that came about after weeks or months of investigation only to just have a bunch of the players mates just derail things entirely claiming it's bullshit based on nothing at all.

 

If you are talking about the dumb suggestion of making fed details more transparent, then i think nobody disagrees with that. Besides being unrealistic workload-wise, it's a pointless suggestion. As for Htrs case - i personally laughed my ass off when i saw SA fund manager getting fedded (no love lost between me and SA). However, when Htr posted the details and fed report including staff responses, that's when it got messy.

 

Will loss services be treated the same way. No why would they? They aren't directly requiring people to register accounts. Traditionally loss services have been excellent in reporting multis too - I have complimented Nebula numerous times on their diligence to the point where we even have our own protocol for Nebula style reports when referencing those. As far as we are concerned they are great.

 

Was it that hard to post this? It would have saved a lot of community outrage and conspiracy theories (inspired by me, i'll take that). A perfectly reasonable answer to a perfectly reasonable question.

 

Personally I am a little surprised that people are so upset we are strictly anti multi. 

 

Where is this coming from? Literally nobody is pro-multies. The entire issue was PJs take on buying referrals and passing the responsibility on the players. Glad to see this thread's title is validated though.

 

and no Oman you're not being jailed for this thread you drama queen...

 

Good thing i added that i was under EXTREME duress. I knew that it's the best way to get your attention. It worked, didn't it?

 

I still have little interest in the fedded thread, it can archive feds for the most part but I'm of the opinion we've been replying too much there lately. 

 

Again, nobody is expecting staff to go into detail on every (or even some) fed cases. When something massive like the Monarch feds, or wet socks shit happens - sure. But not on the daily "Staff see notes" lists (you try making up daily oneliners for over 2 years, ofc i'll start meme conspiracy theories).

 

All in all, this has been blown out of proportion thanks to staff going silent after PJ made that comment which got so much hate. A single followup comment clarifying things would have stopped it in 10 pages instead of 50 + multiple threads. I still completely disagree that players should be held accountable if people they buy services from break the rules. Take this warning for example:

 

I had a similar experience. Was in trade chat looking for stat spies. Found someone selling some so bought a few. Player said he was just logging off and to send the money for the spies to their friend. I messaged their friend to explain what rhe money was for, and then sent the cash. Dont even think it was much...like 7m worth of spies or something like that. Few hours later, log in to see a warning message...

 

You have been found to be middlemanning between the multiple accounts of RM786 [2817211] and FreedomDaKey [3849008]. You should never pay a third party for services rendered as you cannot know if they are telling you the truth.

 

"You should never pay a third party for services rendered as you cannot know if they are telling you the truth." - do you not see how stupid this message is? There are plenty of legit situations where you would pay a third party for services rendered or goods provided without any suspicion. Yes, this was just a warning (which should have also been the case for Htr, with any gains removed). But again, the issue is the messaging itself, which PJs post just empowered.

 

P.S. This is completely unrelated, but would still be very interested to know what happened with the 10k "Staff see notes" cases here.

Mentions: FreedomDaKey [3849008] · RM786 [2817211] · Are loss-selling services guilty of abetting? · Staff see notes - did Torn experience a bot attack?