Interview: Ossivorous Oose of TRC

TRCLampreyLogo
The Red Cellar Logo

In our last post, the GrumpyVamp team brought you the official statement from Alexia of The Red Cellar. I’d like to take a moment to thank her for providing clarification of TRC’s stance on these issues. It’s an important counterpoint to my last article and I hope everyone will take time to read it. But she’s not the only person on the TRC staff who was called out in the document presented in The “Med” Sang Menace.

I reached out to the TRC admin team for their comments and I was fortunate enough to be able to interview Ossivorous Oose, who is the other leader referenced in the infamous document. It is my privilege to be able to present their take on the situation to the GrumpyVamp audience.


Sylvere ap Leanan: Thank you for taking time to speak with us. Please introduce yourself.

Ossivorous Oose, affectionately, though misleadingly, called Leader No.2 in the document.

SAL: As we know, nothing happens in a vacuum. In your own words, please describe the events that led up to the creation of the document authored by Spooky, Jamie and the Unknown Editor that claims to be for the purposes of “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs Reflections, Discussion and Future of the MedSang movement”.

OO: What tied the proverbial knickers in a knot? Well, to be honest, the actual moments of catalyst are severely disappointing when paired against the ridiculous level of outrage implied by the writers of the document. Ultimately, I think those involved with this repulsive word salad / shit bomb had the wrong idea of how TRC is run, what it’s actually about, and also of their own importance within the group itself. Perhaps they were disappointed that it’s not some sort of elite social club of selective sang supremacy?

SAL: It has been suggested that one author is primarily responsible for the content of the document and that the others contributed very little, if anything, to its content. Do you believe that suggestion is accurate? If so, who do you believe to be the primary author of this document?

OO: I feel that Spooky was the main culprit behind the whole ridiculous affair, from initial instigation, to the actual drafting of the document. That being said, however, I do believe that Jamie was in complete compliance with the disturbing stance and what was eventually written down. Going back in the chat logs of our server, I can see the hate filled gospel begin churning months ago. With both of them. If Jamie didn’t significantly contribute by way of actual conception, she was certainly down with and willingly subject to indoctrination.

SAL: How large a contribution do you think the other authors made to the document?

OO: Without further evidence, it would be difficult for me to make clear judgement on the amount of content contributed by the individuals involved. That being said, however, a good amount of guilt by association is reasonable, I think, especially when one considers the inherently offensive and hateful bile that made up the core of the document.

SAL: One of the co-authors has claimed that this document was stolen, edited, and subsequently leaked by a third-party proofreader for some malicious purpose. Do you believe this claim has merit? What are your reasons for that belief?

OO: To be honest, I don’t buy the “document was edited!” shtick. They released the document to several themselves in failed pursuit of finding support for their agenda. I believe these claims to be a desperate attempt at saving face and back-peddling, which is a tactic they both employ often when confronted with any sort of push back. The document was meant for circulation. I think that’s quite clear to see.

SAL: According to one of the co-authors, this document was created because the TRC staff has an obligation to listen to any and all suggestions, concerns, and other feedback from the general membership, otherwise, they are dictators. This same author insinuated that the TRC admin team is also obligated to implement policies based on that feedback. What are your thoughts about this?

OO: We are not under strict obligation to listen to all grievances and, furthermore, retain the right to moderate our space as we see fit. We don’t make decisions lightly, bow to so-called popular opinion of the GVC, nor operate out of any attempts at being oppressive overlords. We hold the right to judge situations & people through personal interaction, and deal with dangerous content / individuals in ways we find appropriate.

Contrary to what the document wants people to believe, our actions are decided as an administrative team and stem directly from the need for fairness, accuracy, and safety. If a member becomes abusive, supports an unsavory agenda, or spews hateful propaganda, how can they logically expect us to be receptive to what they have to say?

SAL: In her guest post on GrumpyVamp, Elizabeth Hopka included a statement of apology attributed to co-authors Jamie and Spooky. Do you accept the apology? Since the apology extends beyond the borders of TRC, do you think the GVC as a whole should accept it? What is your reasoning for this opinion?

OO: I acknowledge the attempt in atonement, however, considering the character of those involved, I find neither sincerity, nor comfort in it.

Honestly, I’m not interested in shotgun apologies. I just hope that those involved with this deluded vitriol take a very good look at who they are, what they’ve done, and why they did it.

SAL: As a member of the TRC staff, you are expected to uphold the established policies of the server. However, in your personal opinion, do you agree with the current direction of TRC or would you prefer it to go another route?

OO: I agree with it entirely. Our current direction is something the administrators have come to collectively after a great deal of toil and dialog. Admittedly, we haven’t always been easy to get along with. Many of us come from difficult GVC situations that, I think, negatively skewed our overall point of view in the past. Being decent to others in no way challenges our core concepts or integrity. If having people with different beliefs around challenges your own self-image, I think that’s a personal issue, and need to evaluate your true motives at that point. Our current direction, if anything, makes it easier for us to help those who are in need.

SAL: What do you want readers to know about TRC, in general?

OO: Our mission is to support blood drinkers, not be judgmental, hate propagating piles of stinking excrement.

So there you have it. The two leaders who were called out have spoken. It sounds to me like TRC is just as horrified by that steaming pile of bovine excrement as anyone else. And it also sounds like they are genuinely attempting to do something positive for the GVC, regardless of how an individual self-identifies. For those who perceive a need to consume blood for the health benefits it gives, The Red Cellar is one of the top resources for information and support. Check them out.
Editor’s Note: Previously, this article mistakenly used incorrect pronouns for Ossivorous Oose. It has been updated to correct this error.
Advertisements