Sakura33: forum

Fair question. What I’m describing is repeated mugging and harassment involving multiple members, not a single agreed mission hit. The screenshot documents one incident; it doesn’t prove the whole pattern by itself. I can also speak directly to repeated sexual advances aimed at me. Other members’ experiences should be presented with their own context and evidence.

I accept your point that his conduct doesn’t automatically give TDT the high ground. My purpose in adding this was to explain that the conflict involved more than someone objecting to leadership’s behaviour.

He left on friendly terms with some of us, including me, then reportedly put around $12b into merc contracts against the entire faction. Whatever his grievances with particular leaders, that decision extended the consequences to members who had no involvement. I had most times gotten in fact well along with him. That deserves consideration too, without treating it as a justification for every response from our side.

Your question about the evidence is reasonable, and I’m happy to distinguish what the screenshot shows from what I’ve experienced or been told. Separately, some replies have included personal insults. I haven’t returned them, and I won’t. I’m willing to discuss the facts, but I’m not willing to keep engaging with personal abuse. We can disagree without treating each other that way.

PS: The person who was mugged could easily chip in about it not being a one time incident

Several replies have made a clear argument: mugging your own faction members is unacceptable. Then that standard needs to apply to FarCough too.

The attached log shows FarCough mugging Mazino while they were both in TDT. This is evidence for the point I raised earlier, not simply leadership calling him “annoying.”

If mugging a fellow member is grounds for condemnation when Nemesis does it, FarCough doing it deserves the same scrutiny. His disagreement with leadership doesn’t exempt him from the standard being used to judge us.

To be clear, this doesn’t make every decision by TDT right. But criticism of leadership doesn’t make the evidence against him disappear either. Both can be examined without excusing either.

The context I’ve added matters because parts of this discussion have reduced the conflict to someone objecting to mistreatment and leadership turning against him for speaking up. This log establishes that he also mugged a fellow member himself. Plus he has also been part of leadership for a long time himself. That materially complicates that account.

I’m not asking anyone to suddenly support TDT. I am asking a straightforward question: does the objection to mugging faction members apply consistently, including when the person responsible is someone you’ve been defending?

There’s a distinction missing here: the mugging between those two members was not brought to leadership as a dispute requiring intervention. As Zedrow explained, the member concerned said they had no issue with it. Had they raised a concern, it would have been addressed. That is different from leadership receiving a complaint about someone being mugged and deciding they should just put up with it.

Members being comfortable with an interaction between themselves doesn’t establish a blanket rule that everyone else has to accept it. Equally, someone else objecting on their behalf doesn’t automatically override their own account. The relevant question is whether the people involved were actually okay with it. Silence alone wouldn’t establish that, but the account given here includes the member explicitly saying they had no issue.

You’re right that whether we voted to kick Farcough doesn’t answer the mugging question. I brought that up in response to the wider characterisation of leadership, not as a substitute for answering it.

The later escalation matters too. The reported roughly $12b in merc contracts was directed at TDT members generally, including people who had no involvement in the original disagreement. That is a substantial expansion of a personal dispute, and it deserves scrutiny alongside our response.

As for the dirty bomb announcement, I understand why a faction housing him would read that as a threat against them, regardless of the stated intention. Saying our issue is with him doesn’t remove that consequence. But framing the next step as “drop it or admit you’re bluffing” also turns further escalation into a test of pride. I don’t think making the situation worse should become an obligation just to satisfy a forum audience.

You can question our response. My objection is to treating “leadership ignored an unwilling member’s complaint” as an established fact when that isn’t what the account presented says happened.

Following my earlier reply, I wanted to add something for those who are struggling themselves. Advice about supporting others matters, but sometimes you’re the person reading quietly, wondering what you’re supposed to do with how you feel.

These won’t fit every person or replace individual support. Please don’t turn them into another list of things you’re failing to do. Pick one that feels useful and leave the rest.

Start with what is happening, rather than what you think it says about you.

“I’m useless” is a judgement about your whole self. “I’m exhausted, I’ve been avoiding messages, and starting things feels difficult” describes what you’re experiencing. That difference matters because a description gives you something to work with.

If you’re unsure where to start, try finishing these sentences:

• Lately, I’ve noticed…

• The hardest part of my day is…

• Something that makes it a little easier is…

• What I wish someone understood is…

You can keep those answers private, send them to someone you trust, or bring them to an appointment. You don’t need to know why everything is happening before you can ask for help.

Make the next step small enough for the energy you actually have.

When everything feels difficult, “sort my life out” is an impossible instruction. Even “clean my room” might be too much. Putting a few clothes into a basket is a clearer place to begin.

The same applies to taking care of yourself. Something simple to eat, a change of clothes, opening the curtains, or sending one necessary message may be a realistic goal today. You’re allowed to stop after that.

This isn’t about pretending small actions solve serious problems. It’s about making the next part of the day more manageable while you get the support you need.

When a thought feels like a fact, try changing how you hold it.

There’s a difference between “Everyone is tired of me” and “I’m having the thought that everyone is tired of me.”

That little bit of distance can help you notice the thought without immediately obeying it. You don’t have to replace it with something wildly positive that you don’t believe. You might simply say: “I feel rejected right now, but I don’t know what everyone is thinking.”

Your feelings deserve attention. The conclusions you reach while distressed can still be incomplete.

If you feel overwhelmed, reconnect with your surroundings.

Try pressing your feet gently into the floor. Notice the support of the chair beneath you. Look around and name a few things you can see, then notice a sound nearby. Bring your attention back to one small action in front of you.

The aim is to help you orient yourself while difficult feelings are present. You don’t have to force them away. If an exercise makes you feel worse, stop; it’s a tool you can choose, not a test you have to pass.

Let someone know what kind of support would help.

You’re allowed to be specific:

“I don’t need advice right now. Could you listen for a bit?”

“I’ve been withdrawing. If I’m slow to reply, it doesn’t mean I don’t want contact.”

“I think I need an appointment, but I’m putting it off. Could you sit with me while I book it?”

Someone can care about you and still not know what to do. Giving them a starting point can make reaching out less frustrating for both of you.

And connection doesn’t always need to be a deep conversation. You might want company, a shared game, or someone to talk about ordinary things with for a while. You’re allowed to want that too.

Pay attention to the cost of getting through your day.

Being able to work, study or make people laugh doesn’t tell the whole story. How much effort does it take? Are you sleeping? Eating regularly? Withdrawing from people? Finding less enjoyment in things? Using all your energy to appear okay?

If things are persisting, worsening, or interfering with daily life, speak with a doctor or mental health professional. You don’t have to wait for a crisis. An appointment can start with: “I’m still managing, but it’s taking much more out of me than it used to.”

If talking is difficult, bring a note describing what has changed, how long it’s been happening, and how it affects you. You can hand it over instead of trying to remember everything under pressure.

On a personal note, you’re welcome to message me.

I’m happy to listen when I’m available, help you put something into words, or think with you about a possible next step. You don’t need to know me well or have an impressive reason for reaching out.

I can’t provide therapy through Torn or guarantee a quick reply. If you feel you might act on thoughts of suicide or cannot keep yourself safe, please seek immediate help through local emergency services or a crisis service, and let someone nearby know. Don’t wait for a reply here.

For anyone who simply doesn’t know how to start: “Could we talk? Things have been difficult lately” is enough.

You’re allowed to receive care while things are still messy, while you’re unsure what you need, and before you have an explanation that makes sense to anyone else.

Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I work as a school psychologist, being a trained clinical psychologist and I appreciate seeing space made for this conversation in a community where people might otherwise keep what they’re going through to themselves.

Something I would like to add is you do not have to be at your lowest point to deserve support. You don’t have to wait until you can no longer function, until someone notices, or until you have the “right words” to explain what is happening. Still working, studying, joking in faction chat or logging into a game does not mean that everything underneath is manageable. You can be getting through your day and still need someone alongside you.

When someone opens up, try to meet their experience before trying to change it.

Our instinct is often to reassure immediately: “Things will get better,” “You have so much going for you,” or “Think of everyone who loves you.” Those words usually come from care. But someone who is already struggling may hear them as reasons they shouldn’t feel this way, and feel even more ashamed that they do.

You don’t need a perfect speech. You can start with:

“I’m glad you told me.”

“That sounds really difficult to carry.”

“You don’t have to make it sound less painful for my sake.”

Acknowledging someone’s pain does not mean agreeing with their hopelessness. It means showing them that they can speak honestly without having to defend, minimise or tidy up what they feel.

Be curious about what they need, rather than assuming.

“Would it help if I listened, helped you think through some options, or helped you contact someone?” gives the person a say in the conversation. Sometimes we start offering solutions before we have understood the problem. Sometimes someone wants practical help but has no energy left to organise it. Asking can make the support more useful and less overwhelming.

Where possible, make offers concrete. “Let me know if you need anything” is kind, but it still leaves the struggling person with the job of deciding what to ask for and whether they are allowed to ask. “Would you like some company while you make that call?” or “Can I check in with you tomorrow?” can be easier to accept. Only offer what you can realistically follow through on.

Leave room for an honest answer.

If you ask how someone is doing, try to make space for something other than “fine.” You don’t have to turn every conversation into a serious discussion, but you can let someone know that they don’t need to perform being okay around you. And if they aren’t ready to talk, you can respect that without withdrawing your kindness.

For anyone reading this who is struggling: “I don’t know how to explain it, but I’m not okay” is already enough to begin a conversation. You do not need to arrive with a diagnosis, a clear explanation or a plan for fixing everything.

On a personal note, you’re welcome to message me too. I’m happy to lend an ear when I can, whether you want to put something into words, talk through a difficult situation or think about where to find support. My professional background informs how I listen, but you don’t need to approach me formally or have a neatly prepared reason for reaching out.

I can’t offer therapy through Torn or promise an immediate reply, so please don’t wait on my inbox if you need urgent help. What I can offer is a thoughtful conversation, without expecting you to have everything figured out.

Sometimes being helpful starts with making it a little easier for someone to tell the truth about how they’re doing.

Decent amount of them. Me being one

Quite reputable remours are currently there that a Pokemon MMO is being worked on with at least 3 regions.

Just take 2 mill with you. Should  be enough. Often you can even do for less.

All the best and if you just want to talk to someone and see if there is maybe a path forward where you could stay or just want to vent my pm is always open. 

The only good kind of fish slap  :p

The sexual harassment actually came first and the mugging and harassing others actually all had evidence scrrenshots in one of the previous posts.

What kind of fish dear Sir

I agree that members should be able to expect decency from each other, regardless of rank. FarCough’s treatment of other members was one of several reasons he was removed from leadership. It wasn’t behaviour we considered compatible with him continuing in that role.

That doesn’t answer every question about how the wider situation was handled, but it is relevant to the claim that leadership simply accepted his conduct and refused to act. His history in the faction didn’t prevent him from losing that position.

I’m not asking you to withdraw criticism of TDT. I’m explaining why presenting evidence of his behaviour isn’t an attempt to justify everything in the original post. It supports the point that concerns about his conduct existed before this dispute became public, and that consequences had already followed.

Your point about a consistent standard is fair. That standard should apply to current and former leaders alike. I can agree with that while correcting the impression that nothing was done about FarCough.

Fair question. What I’m describing is repeated mugging and harassment involving multiple members, not a single agreed mission hit. The screenshot documents one incident; it doesn’t prove the whole pattern by itself. I can also speak directly to repeated sexual advances aimed at me. Other members’ experiences should be presented with their own context and evidence.

I accept your point that his conduct doesn’t automatically give TDT the high ground. My purpose in adding this was to explain that the conflict involved more than someone objecting to leadership’s behaviour.

He left on friendly terms with some of us, including me, then reportedly put around $12b into merc contracts against the entire faction. Whatever his grievances with particular leaders, that decision extended the consequences to members who had no involvement. I had most times gotten in fact well along with him. That deserves consideration too, without treating it as a justification for every response from our side.

Your question about the evidence is reasonable, and I’m happy to distinguish what the screenshot shows from what I’ve experienced or been told. Separately, some replies have included personal insults. I haven’t returned them, and I won’t. I’m willing to discuss the facts, but I’m not willing to keep engaging with personal abuse. We can disagree without treating each other that way.

PS: The person who was mugged could easily chip in about it not being a one time incident

I dare you to look at my previous post with evidence that the guy you defended did in fact do it himself ;]

Several replies have made a clear argument: mugging your own faction members is unacceptable. Then that standard needs to apply to FarCough too.

The attached log shows FarCough mugging Mazino while they were both in TDT. This is evidence for the point I raised earlier, not simply leadership calling him “annoying.”

If mugging a fellow member is grounds for condemnation when Nemesis does it, FarCough doing it deserves the same scrutiny. His disagreement with leadership doesn’t exempt him from the standard being used to judge us.

To be clear, this doesn’t make every decision by TDT right. But criticism of leadership doesn’t make the evidence against him disappear either. Both can be examined without excusing either.

The context I’ve added matters because parts of this discussion have reduced the conflict to someone objecting to mistreatment and leadership turning against him for speaking up. This log establishes that he also mugged a fellow member himself. Plus he has also been part of leadership for a long time himself. That materially complicates that account.

I’m not asking anyone to suddenly support TDT. I am asking a straightforward question: does the objection to mugging faction members apply consistently, including when the person responsible is someone you’ve been defending?

I lately been going for all achievements in the messenger.

Was it the most stressful I played? Probably not. But the last very stressful I remember. My hands were shaking for a long time after I took a break from some power seal challenges.

I’ll leave it here. My intention was to add context, not to defend every decision or dismiss anyone’s criticism.

What I wanted considered was that, if involving an entire faction in a personal dispute is unfair, our members deserve that same consideration. His grievances were with particular people in leadership, yet the merc contracts targeted the wider faction. That doesn’t automatically justify our response, but it matters when assessing both sides.

I’ve been insulted a few times while trying to explain that. I haven’t returned those insults, because disagreement doesn’t need to become personal. You can question my argument without us having to treat each other as enemies.

I care about my faction, and I understand others care about theirs. Behind all these accounts are people playing a game to enjoy themselves. Life is hard enough without us making each other’s downtime miserable too.

I’ve added what I felt was missing, and I’ve heard the objections. I’m stepping away from the discussion now.

 Take care folks.

Sure here is a good example.

Take a good look at the date there. A good fucking 3 years of ago where he got countless chances and repeated difficult behavior.

I’m adding context about FarCough’s conduct, because describing him as someone targeted simply for objecting to leadership mugging members leaves out a lot.

FarCough himself attacked and mugged fellow faction members on multiple occasions. He was given repeated chances to move past these disputes, but the behaviour continued. He eventually left wishing people, including me, well, then arranged merc contracts against the wider faction, including members who had nothing to do with his grievances.

There’s also behaviour I experienced directly: sometime he would say sexual names aimed at me, some of which clearly crossed personal boundaries. Separately, I saw him in chat threatening to flight-delay a member long before he was removed from leadership. I still got those screenshots too. So no he is not as innocent as you think.

None of that means he wasn’t entitled to raise a concern. It does mean that “he spoke up, so leadership turned against him” is an incomplete account. His concerns deserve consideration, but so does his treatment of other members.

If your objection is that people uninvolved in a personal dispute shouldn’t be dragged into it, that’s a fair standard. It also applies to hiring mercs to hospitalise TDT members generally, including newer members who had nothing to do with the disagreement, instead of only leadership.

That doesn’t automatically justify the DB threat, and you’re entitled to criticise it. But describing this as targeting someone simply for objecting to mugging leaves out the faction-wide merc contracts that prompted the announcement.

You can disagree with our response without treating his escalation as justified. Ordinary members on either side shouldn’t become less relevant because one side has more public sympathy.

That context has been in the original post from the start: those two members had a history before they were in the same faction, and the member being mugged explicitly said they had no issue with it and considered the argument unnecessary.

So this wasn’t leadership hoping someone would stay quiet. The person concerned did speak, and their account matters too.

You can disagree with allowing that arrangement between faction members. But that’s a different argument from claiming we ignored someone asking for help. Please address what was actually stated rather than a version where their own response disappears.

There’s a distinction missing here: the mugging between those two members was not brought to leadership as a dispute requiring intervention. As Zedrow explained, the member concerned said they had no issue with it. Had they raised a concern, it would have been addressed. That is different from leadership receiving a complaint about someone being mugged and deciding they should just put up with it.

Members being comfortable with an interaction between themselves doesn’t establish a blanket rule that everyone else has to accept it. Equally, someone else objecting on their behalf doesn’t automatically override their own account. The relevant question is whether the people involved were actually okay with it. Silence alone wouldn’t establish that, but the account given here includes the member explicitly saying they had no issue.

You’re right that whether we voted to kick Farcough doesn’t answer the mugging question. I brought that up in response to the wider characterisation of leadership, not as a substitute for answering it.

The later escalation matters too. The reported roughly $12b in merc contracts was directed at TDT members generally, including people who had no involvement in the original disagreement. That is a substantial expansion of a personal dispute, and it deserves scrutiny alongside our response.

As for the dirty bomb announcement, I understand why a faction housing him would read that as a threat against them, regardless of the stated intention. Saying our issue is with him doesn’t remove that consequence. But framing the next step as “drop it or admit you’re bluffing” also turns further escalation into a test of pride. I don’t think making the situation worse should become an obligation just to satisfy a forum audience.

You can question our response. My objection is to treating “leadership ignored an unwilling member’s complaint” as an established fact when that isn’t what the account presented says happened.