The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – AGONIST PLAY ERA (2021-2022)

1. 〈什麼是破壞遊？〉 “What Is a Sabotour?” (2021)
2. 〈什麼是解性遊？〉 “What Is Agonist Play?” (2022)
3. 《降天下世》 Felling Heaven, Felling World (2022)
4. 《下世萬敵》 Future Only Enemies (2022)

看看這些死項目名。我就告訴你會有壯觀的失敗。

Look at these fucking titles. I told you there would be spectacular failure.

Nimona 自殺企圖之後我不再利用 itch.io 的平台發布遊戲了。雖然 itch.io 本來就是有很多不同的社群用，我還是認為 itch.io 屬於獨立 TRPG 圈子的平台。身為被視為完全是錯的傷害者的人就不該污染那空間，不管這樣多麼簡化。話說清楚一點：我承認我有傷害人—別人說我有傷害就表示我有傷害，就是這樣—可是我不認為完全是我在錯。如果你認為害 = 錯 = 罪，認為傷害者不願意當罪人就表示傷害者不承認自己有造害，抱歉，我無話可說。我無法在你的問責系統之中負責。請隨心隨意地處理我。

After Nimona's suicide attempt I stopped using itch.io as a platform to release my games. Even though itch.io has always been used by many different groups, I still believe that itch.io is a platform that belongs to the indie TTRPG scene. As someone who's regarded as a harmdoer completely in the wrong, I shouldn't pollute that space, no matter how reductive that is. Allow me to be claer—I admit that I caused harm—if someone else says I caused harm that means I caused harm, period—but I am not convinced that I was completely in the wrong. If you believe that harm = wrong = crime or sin, that if a harmdoer is unwilling to act like they've sinned then it means they're unwilling to admit the harm they caused, then sorry, I have nothing else to say. I cannot be accountable in your system for accountability. Please dispose of me as you wish.

但是你必須知道我是直到現在很堅持地拒絕做出這種結論。Nimona 自殺企圖之後我有一段很長的時間認為自己永遠不能再寫新的 TRPG。每次想到設計時，我就只能想到自己的謀殺力量。我對自己有偏執，覺得每個寫下的字都有可能背叛我—但也覺得在某些情況之下，我就是該被背叛。因此我接下來的遊戲內容被這種感覺冤纏。

But you must know that up until now I have insisted on refusing to have this conclusion. After Nimona's suicide attempt there was a long period of time where I was convinced that I would never write another TTRPG again. Every time I thought about design, I could only think of my own murderous power. I started becoming paranoid towards myself, feeling that every word I wrote could betray me—while also feeling that in some cases, I deserved to be betrayed. And so my following game content was haunted by this feeling.

過了一段時間，「我製造遊戲就是在殺人」的想法漸漸離開。我願意把遊戲移到新的部落格，重新開始。那部落格的名稱就是可惡的「解性遊」。之前我說過解性遊有一種浪漫化為了明白對和錯而自殺的實踐；為了 Nimona 對自己進行報仇便社交自殺，也之前為了 _____ 做出同樣的事的我，希望在解性遊中尋找慰藉並不奇怪。

After a period of time, the thought of “me making games is murder” gradually subsided. I was willing to start again, by moving my games to a new blog. That blog's name was the vile Agonist Play. Earlier I had said that agonist play had a praxis of romanticizing suicide for the sake of understanding right and wrong; having carried out revenge against myself with social suicide for Nimona, and having done the same for _____ in the past, it was no wonder that I had wanted to find comfort in agonist play.

第一個任務就是要讓剩下願意跟我互動的人知道我是多麼有問題的遊戲設計師。〈什麼是破壞遊？〉就是這樣的努力。雖然破壞遊不是純粹的政治遊戲設計技術，因為它有情境者思想異軌技術的由來，也因為我不當地利用了它來造成我前同志想自殺的企圖，我把它的定義文章列入項目。很短，所以我在這裡重貼：

My first task was to let the remaining people who were willing to interact with me know how problematic of a game designer I was. “What Is a Sabotour?” was one of these attempts. Even though sabotourism was not a purely political game design technique, because it had origins in the situationist technique of détournement, and because I improperly used it to cause my former comrade to want to kill xemself, I've included its definitional essay in my list of items. It's short, so I'll repost it here:

A sabotour is an act of disrespect. 破壞遊是種無禮的行為。

It is to rip apart someone else's creation, and rearrange the pieces according to your own designs. 是把別人的作品毀裂，把碎片重新按照自己的意圖來排列。

It is to spit on someone else's designs and say, “I can do better than you.” 是唾棄別人的意圖，並且說: 「我能比你做得更好。」

Sabotourism is not an ideology, but a method for attacking other people's designs with creative violence. 破壞旅遊不是主義，而是利用創造性的暴力來攻擊別人意圖的做法。

Not all designs should be yours for sabotouring. 並不是所有的意圖都該給你拿去玩破壞。

And no matter what, a sabotourist must be responsible for where their sabotours ultimately take them. 而且無論如何的是，一個破壞遊客必須負擔他跟破懷遊玩到的最終地點。

可以看出來破壞遊首先是個藝術技巧。因此在〈什麼是破壞遊？〉之中我隱藏了它被情境者們的影響，他們的名字連提都沒提。當時的我直覺地覺得我好像把濫用了他們的異軌概念，有希望疏遠聯繫。跟對待獨立 TRPG 一樣，我又是不希望自己的錯誤污染他們的思想空間。

You can tell that sabotourism first and foremost was an art technique. That's why in “What Is a Sabotour?” I hid the fact that it was influenced by the Situationists, not even mentioning their name. At the time I intuitively felt that I had misappropriated their concept of détournement, and had the wish to distance myself from the connection. Like with indie TTRPG, I was trying to avoid polluting their space.

當然我對破壞遊有更多想說批評，但我要之後再處理。目前我想限制討論這概念如何反映我當時的政治遊戲設計思想。首先，我相指出這定義中跟解性遊設計同樣的對抗性作者態度。跟《系統破滅》、《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》一樣，它認為接受開始的對抗是為了更高的事業，為了在互相鬥爭之中得到政治正覺。然而，在結尾中你可以意識到我對這態度的自我懷疑。我最有政治性的有意破壞遊造成極端無明的結果。我必須承認自己當過政治騙子，承認破懷遊的技巧可能最後只是能用來執行對人民的背叛。

Of course I have more criticisms to say about sabotourism, but I want to save that for later. Right now I want to restrict myself to discussing how this concept reflected my understanding of political game design at the time. First of all, I want to point out how this definitional essay and agonist game design share the same kind of antagonistic authorial attitude. Like System Shatters, You Provide the Paint, and Fools of Heaven!, it believes that accepting initial antagonism is for the sake of a higher cause, for the sake of achieving political enlightenment through mutual struggle. However, you can see my self-doubt towards this attitude in the ending. My most political intentional sabotour created such an extremely unenlightened result. I had to admit that I had been a political fraud, admit that the technique of sabotourism might ultimately only be used to betray the people.

追溯性地說，我有舊的遊戲能歸於破壞遊的種類。可以說《系統破滅》是個 DIY 破壞遊的自雜，也可以說《幽靈島》是個破壞自己的破壞遊。這新的體系能創造什麼新的意義？對於《系統破滅》，我認為加了一種免責聲明，一種警告—小心是哪些創作者被你敵視作為設計攻擊的目標，小心你在現實認為是在「限制自由」的任何東西都有可能是別人有理的對抗。但是要重新分析《幽靈島》，恐怕不是那麼的簡單。

Retroactively speaking, I had old games that I could place into the category of sabotour. You could say that System Shatters was a DIY sabotour zine, and you could also say the Phantom Island was a sabotour of itself. What new meaning does this new framework create? With regards to System Shatters, I think it adds a kind of disclaimer, a kind of warning—be careful what creators you view as enemies to target for attacking design, be careful that anything you think of as “restricting your freedom” in reality could be legitimate resistance from other people. But to reanalyze Phantom Island, unfortunately, is not as simple and easy.

《幽靈島》所謂算是「自己」的破壞目標其實有包刮兩方：我加上玩家。一方面，遊戲破壞的是在第一版的《死貓兒頭》或在第二版的詩，因為我把這些東西給玩家毀裂成單字表用來遊玩。另一方面，遊戲破壞的是玩家的記憶敘述，因為它規定玩家必續利用我的單字表來毀裂自己想說的話。也需要考慮單字表在第一版有佛教和西方奇幻的內容，在第二版有我跟 ______ 在 TRPG 圈子中互相政治對抗的內容。全體分析，我覺得《幽靈島》是在利用破懷遊的方式來探索各種不一致的敵視角度問題，在表現敵視跟社會控制的作用如何有相似之處。目標是輪迴似痛苦循環的解脫、拘押中心監牢似遊戲（或許也包刮遊戲圈子）的解脫、世界現狀的解脫—這最後一項目標不就是跟解性遊徹底革命遊玩的目標一樣嗎？在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我說：

The “self” targeted for sabotour in Phantom Island actually includes two parties: me in addition to the players. On one hand, the game sabotours Head of a Dead Cat in the first version or my poem in the second, because I give these things to the players to rip apart into a table of words to play with. On the other hand, the game sabotours the players' narratives of memory, because it makes players use my table of words to rip apart what they wish to say. We also have to consider that in the first version the table of words contained content about Buddhism and Western fantasy, while in the second version the content was about me and _____'s mutual political struggle against each other in the TTRPG scene. Taken altogether, I think that Phantom Island used the method of the sabotour to explore the problematics of different angles of villainization in contradiction, expressing how villainization shared parallels in function with social control. The goal was to escape samsara-like cycles of suffering, escape the detention-center-prison-like game (and perhaps also the game scene), escape the current state of the world—and wasn't this last goal the same as the goal of agonist play's play to seek total revolution? In “What is Agonist Play?,” I had said:

The ultimate stage of agonist play is quitting the game to realize that play's completion. The fictional world is but a playground where we can imagine total control over our own realities. The horizon of the real world is actually the truest baseline where the uprooting of hierarchies for total revolution must begin.

解性遊的最終階段就是退出遊戲來實現玩到底的結果。虛構世界只不過是想像能完全控制我們現實的遊樂園。現實世界的天際才是徹底革命根除等級制度的最真底線。

這是情境者邏輯的稀奇顛倒—我是想利用遊戲創造自我批評再自我毀滅的玩家微界和微社，因為遊戲永遠實現不了革命。玩家必須退出玩家的角色，回到真正的政治世界去。如果這是在諷刺左派自我吞食的話，那還可以說是好笑。可是我是在認真的。我也沒意識到這顛倒邏輯的憂慮是關於認為自己的革命家或革命家似的問題，與革命的問題相反。我之後會再來談。

This was a curious inversion of situationist logic—I wanted to use games to create self-criticizing and then self-destructing micro-worlds and micro-societies of players, because the game would always fail to realize revolution. The players had to quit their role as players, and return to the real political world. This would have been funnier as satire about how the left eats itself. But I was being serious. I also was not aware that the concerns behind this inverted logic were about problems of people who thought of themselves as revolutionaries or revolutionary-like, as opposed to problems of revolution. I will discuss this later.

我們來回去討論〈什麼是解性遊？〉。這個定義文章我已經講了蠻多；講過的東西不會再提。我該說的是，寫這個定義文章之前，我還沒開始把自己的遊戲想說是解性遊—對，連建立概念的《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》也沒。因為是這樣，或許可能該對自己的政治遊戲設計寬容一點—我是在一邊做一邊想辦法的。但你知道我很喜歡跟自己有仇，很喜歡浪漫化自己的冤纏。

Let's return to discussing “What Is Agonist Play?” This definitional essay I've already said a lot about; the things I've already said I won't repeat. What I should say is that prior to writing this definitional essay, I still hadn't started thinking about my games as agonist games—yes, not even the concept-establishing games of You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven! Because of this, perhaps I should be more forgiving towards my own political game design—I was figuring things out as I went along. But you know how I love to hold grudges against myself, how I love to romanticize my own haunting.

在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我討論了在《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》中出現的虛構政治派，明確地說這些虛構的政治派在反映我個人在美國的現實中遇到的政治派：

In “What Is Agonist Play?,” I discussed the fictional political factions that appeared in You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven!, explicitly stating that these fictional factions reflected political factions I had encountered in my personal U.S. reality:

• 堅性者 Survivalists: 大部分的人 Most people
• 勇性者 Heroists: 自由主義者 Liberals
• 化性者 Agonists: 同志 Comrades*
• 歉性者 Apologists: 非政治的人 Apolitical people
• 霸性者 Hegemonists: 保守主義者 Conservatives
• 血性者 Sacrifists: 法西斯主義者 Fascists

*People who take risks together to destroy the current social order and create future collective liberation. 一起承擔風險毀滅當前社會秩序和創造未來團體自由的人。

之前，我沒有特別為任何派寫政治遊戲，頂多在某些遊戲（像《幽影島》）前面說一下大該不會喜歡那遊戲的人。可是在開始利用解性遊這概念之後，我改成為理想的同志寫遊戲—而且是第一次有意的包括 TRPG 圈外的同志。

Before, I hadn't particularly written games for any political faction, at most only stating at the start of some games (like Phantom Island) what type of people wouldn't like that game. But after starting to use the concept of agonist play, I switched to writing games for the comrades of my ideals—intentionally including for the first time comrades outside the TTRPG scene.

《降天下世》就是我第一個有意的解性遊。是個異軌《降世神通: 最後的氣宗》系列的遊戲，描寫為了革命被詛咒重複轉生的殭湖革命家。扮演這些革命家的玩家便利用代表政治對抗各種元素的「運素」（意思是移動根源）來互相決鬥，試圖改變彼此之間的現實。遊戲系統是 J.Y.《天下江湖》的改版—我不知道是不是只有我做過那遊戲的改版，可是我知道那時候 J.Y. 看到我的設計很興奮。

Felling Heaven, Felling World was my first intentionally agonist game. It was a game that détourned the Avatar: The Last Airbender series, depicting Jyanghu (a pun on jianghu, the wuxia underworld, and literally translated as “corpse water”) revolutionaries cursed to reincarnate for revolution. As these revolutionaries, players would use “yunsu” (meaning moving roots) that represented different elements of political resistance to decisively struggle against each other, attempting to change each other's realities. The game system was a hack of J.Y.'s Under Heaven, Underworld—I don't know if I was the only one ever make a hack of that game, but I know at the time J.Y. was very excited about my designs.

《降天下世》跟《天丑！》很像，又是華裔文化、佛教跟無治主義的合併—所以跟《天丑！》的問題也一樣，也又是在鼓勵敵人立場、頌揚死亡和浪漫化不死狀態。它是個深深對革命事業虔誠的遊戲，也是個極端渴望虔誠同志的遊戲，設計充滿了想像的同寅。能作為這些毛病的典型就是殭湖角色創作的機制。所謂的殭湖就是遊戲的虛構世界，創造過程規定一個玩家必須犧牲自己之前已經創造完的玩家角色，接受 GM 的角色，再破壞遊似地毀裂犧牲角色的卡用來新創虛構世界的角色。 GM 的角色就是有用的屍體。關於這遊戲設計實踐，我說：

Felling Heaven, Felling World was very similar to Fools of Heaven!, once again integrating Sino culture, Buddhism, and anarchism—and therefore it and Fools of Heaven! also share the same problems of encouraging antagonist standpoints, glorifying death, and romanticizing being undead. It's a deeply pious game devoted to the cause of revolution, and also a game that yearns for pious comrades to the extreme, designs filled with imagined affinity. What exemplifies all these issues is the mechanics for jyanghu character creation. The jyanghu is the fictional world in the game, with a creation process that requires one player to sacrifice a character they have already created, to accept the role of GM, and then sabotouristically rip apart their sacrificed character's sheet to newly create the character of the world. The GM's character was a useful corpse. Regarding this praxis of game design, I said:

…當我們打倒承載世界的等級制度，我們也會把世界載到制度的遺址。歷史上制度根深柢固損害未來的地景，而我們種植的新根會繼承到制度的髒土。革除天命的問題就是不能逃避我們總會被分解，總會與土合一的塵世宿命。

...when we bring down the hierarchies that hold up the world, we also bring the world down to their ruins. Their historical entrenchment compromises the landscape of the future, and the new roots we plant inherit their soil. The problem of overturning heaven is that we cannot escape our mortal destiny to become decomposed, to become one with the soil.

所以這現世的道理就是解自分的作用。就是解自己是怎樣損害未來的地景、怎樣會留傳髒土、怎樣會被革除。就是解不只是你，而是這世界上每一個人都在這因果循環中，無論他們是解或不解。

And so the principle of this present is to comprehend the purpose of your own destruction. It is to understand how you compromise the landscape of the future, how your soil will get passed down, how you will be overturned. It is to understand that not just you, but every individual on earth is in this cycle of causality, whether they comprehend it or not.

這是在勸大家了解自己的政治果報—寫是因為自己的過去強迫我必須加了解自己的果報。做出「必須通過自殺才能了解自己」的論點其實是在自己說服自己。我是在投射。我理想中的同志不是群眾的同志，而是我神經過敏的同志—我個人的同志。

This was a call for everyone to understand their own political karma—a call I wrote because my past obligated me to better understand my own karma. Saying “we must kill ourselves to understand ourselves” was really me trying to convince myself of my own argument. I was projecting. The comrades of my ideals were not comrades to the masses, but comrades to my neuroses—comrades to me.

接下來的《下世萬敵》把這樣的想法發展到恐怖的極端。《下世萬敵》是《降天下世》的改版，這次異軌的是《龍與地下城》類似的西方奇幻 TRPG。玩家扮演的是因為殖民主義強迫變成似人怪物的萬敵俠（英文譯 agonist，跟解性遊的英文譯一模一樣），利用「陣屬」（陣營 + 屬性）來創造有革命性正義的新世界。《下世萬敵》也把傳統的 RPG 職業換成因萬敵俠烈士而得名的衣缽（有佛教內涵）。這些烈士跟《天丑！》中季節的四象烈士一模一樣。另外，衣缽不只是普通職業的再膚，有必要「繼承」前革命家思想和手段的定義，孝順革命家的暗指。從這裡開始只會變得越來越糟。

The subsequent Future Only Enemies developed this way of thinking to the extreme. FOE was a hack of Felling Heaven, Felling World, this time détourning Western fantasy tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons. You played as agonists forced to become humanoid monsters due to colonialism, using “aligned attributes” (alignments + attributes) to create a new world of revolutionary justice. FOE also turned conventional RPG classes into mantles (the Mandarin version of the name, 衣缽 , has Buddhist connotations) named after agonist martyrs. These martyrs were the same as the Four Symbols martyrs from Fools of Heaven!. Moreover, mantles weren't just reskins of of normal classes, but were defined by the requirement to “inherit” past revolutionaries' thinking and methods, an implication to have filial piety towards them. And it only gets worse from here.

《下世萬敵》把《降天下世》的決鬥系統作為核心。兩個遊戲都把決鬥定義為「任何無法和解的衝突」，唯一只能利用搏鬥來解決。雖然如此，兩個遊戲處理決鬥結果的方式完全不同。《降天下世》試圖和諧地處理：決鬥結束之後，勝者得利失害、敗者得利得害或失利失害、喪者得害失利—但全都有權力為自己做出利和害的定義。《下世萬敵》是殘忍版：決鬥結束之後，勝者必須決定如何為剩下的人直接造出損害，而剩下的人要反對只能再次開始新的決鬥。為何那麼暴虐地改變？

FOE used the decisive struggle system from Felling Heaven, Felling World as its core. Both games defined decisive struggle as “any conflict with no possible compromise” that could only be resolved with struggle. Even so, the way both games handled the results of decisive struggle were entirely different. Felling Heaven, Felling World tried to resolve things harmoniously: at the end of a decisive struggle, victors attract gain and avoid loss, yielders attract gain with loss or avoid loss without gain, and sufferers attract loss and avoid gain—but all had the power to define gain and loss for themselves. FOE was cruel: the victors must decide how to directly harm everyone else, and everyone else who opposes this can only start a new decisive struggle. Why such a tyrannical change?

我陷入了一種充滿對政敵的無名怨憤和對同志的狂熱崇拜的思想狀態。不只是因為在 TRPG 圈子中發生的事。也是因為當時在我城市中組織的發展。我見識到好戰的必要，在起義之中得到「這就是戰爭」的結論。就是我們同志在跟世界在對抗。就是「我們會保護自己」。就是除了我們自己，沒人要。就是按照這樣的態度，我完成了《下世萬敵》：

I had fallen into a state of thinking that was full of ressentiment towards political enemies and fanatic devotion towards comrades. It wasn't just because of what had happened in the TTRPG scene. It was also because of what was happening with organizing in my city at the time. I had seen the need for militancy, arriving in a conclusion at an insurrection that “this was war.” It was us comrades against the world. It was “we protect us.” It was nobody wanting us save for ourselves. It was with this attitude I ended FOE:

如果你相信有無害勝利的存在，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你因為害怕革命選擇和解，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到無治和共產而想到是混亂和獨裁，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到自由而想到是民主，這就不是你的遊戲。如果警察沒向你開過槍，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你沒見過自殺的同志，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到同志並以為我意思是左派的朋友，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你覺得我是自以為是，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你讀完這些字覺得我是瘋子的話，這就不是你的遊戲。這就不是你的遊戲。這也不是我的遊戲。這是屬於「我們」的遊戲。想比屬於要得更多的「我們」。想被解放的「我們」。看到血不眨眼的「我們」。聽到正常想到暴力的我們。聽到暴力想到這裡和現在的「我們」。將過去、現代、和未來視為相互聯繫一瞬間的「我們」。看到遊戲想到監牢的「我們」。想廢除法律的「我們」。不想廢除「自己」的「我們」。不放棄決鬥的「我們」，下世萬敵。

If you believe in harmless victories, this game is not for you. If you choose compromise because you are afraid of revolution, this game is not for you. If you hear anarchy and communism and think chaos and dictatorship, this game is not for you. If you hear freedom and think democracy, this game is not for you. If you have never been shot at by the police, this game is not for you. If you have never known a comrade who committed suicide, this game is not for you. If you hear comrade and assume I mean leftist friend, this game is not for you. If you think I need to get off my high horse, this game is not for you. If you read this and think I'm insane, this game is not for you. This game is not for you. This game is not for me. This game belongs to “us.” “We” who desire more than inclusion. “We” who desire liberation. “We” who see blood and don't blink. “We” who hear normal and think violence. “We” who hear violence and think here and now. “We” who see past, present, and future as one instant moment of interconnection. “We” who see game and think prison. “We” who wish to abolish law. “We” who do not wish to abolish “us.” “We” who refuse to give up decisive struggle, “our” future only enemies.

革命就是我的涅槃，就是我完美的否定—解放就是敵人的完美否定，同時也是個人在同志團體之中的完美否定。在琴·威爾英文翻譯的《武裝的歡樂》之中，阿爾弗雷多·博納諾寫說：「革命家是虔誠的人。革命不是虔誠的事件。」這我早就知道。這知識應該激起我尋找更接近現實的想法，可是反而引起我更死死地抱住我的信仰。我還只是在開始學會放手。

Revolution was my nirvana, my perfect negation—liberation was the perfect negation of enemies, and also the perfect negation of self in the collective of comrades. In “Armed Joy” translated by Jean Weir, Alfredo Bonanno writes: “Revolutionaries are pious folk. The revolution is not a pious event.” This I knew a long time ago. This knowledge should have pushed me to search for ways of thinking closer to reality, but instead caused me to cling to my faith with a vice grip. I am only just beginning to let go.

我刪除「解性遊」的部落格原因是因為認為 Blogger 的平台要審查我的內容。當時 Blogger 規定你必須利用 Google 帳號登入，所以我特別為了這個部落格創了新的 Gmail。在部落格存在的短期之中，我一直重複收到這些很奇怪的 Google email：

The reason I deleted the Agonist Play blog was because I suspected its platform, Blogger, wanted to censor my content. At the time Blogger required you to log in with a Google account, so I specifically created a new Gmail for the sake of the blog. During the short lifespan of the blog's existence, I repeatedly received these strange emails from Google:

其中一個 email 的截圖，是我 Google 帳號遭到停用的通知 A screenshot of one of those emails, which is a notification about my Google account being disabled

一開始我想說不理，因為每次點 email 中的連接還原帳戶都沒事。可是收到那麼多次決定還是該離開 Blogger 比較保險。我認為這些帳號停用通知一定是跟我 po 的遊戲內容有關，尤其是我的解性遊。如果你查查看 Google 有可能停用帳號的原因，其中一個原因是跟所謂的「恐怖主義」有關，說不準 po 「煽動暴力的內容」。另外的是違反產品政策；自 2024 年起—不知道當時 2022 年的是不是同一樣—Blogger 的 內容政策在暴力組織與活動的部份說：

At the beginning I wanted to just ignore them, since every time I clicked the link in the email to restore my account, everything was normal. But after getting so many I felt that leaving Blogger was the safer thing to do. I believe that these account disabled notifications had to do with the game content I was posting, especially my agonist games. If you look up Google's reasons for potentially disabling an account, one of those reasons is “terrorism,” with the statement that you're not supposed to post content that will “incite violence.” The other reason is breaking product policies; as of 2024—not sure if it was different in 2022—Blogger's Content Policy says in its section on Violent Organizations and Movements:

Known violent non-state organizations and movements are not permitted to use this product for any purpose. Do not distribute content that facilitates or promotes the activities of these groups, such as recruiting, coordinating online or offline activities, sharing manuals or other materials that could facilitate harm, promoting ideologies of violent non-state organizations, promoting terrorist acts, inciting violence, or celebrating attacks by violent non-state organizations. Depending upon the content, we may also take action against the user. Content related to violent non-state organizations may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand the context.

任何已知的非政府暴力組織和活動不得基於任何目的使用這項產品。請勿散布煽動或鼓吹這類組織活動的內容，例如招募、籌辦線上或線下活動、分享可能助長傷害行為的手冊或其他資料、宣傳非政府暴力組織的意識形態和恐怖行動、引發暴力行為，或是讚揚非政府暴力組織的攻擊事件。視內容性質而定，我們也可能對使用者採取行動。我們允許具有教育、紀實、科學或藝術性質的非政府暴力組織相關內容，但前提是必須提供充分資訊，協助使用者瞭解內容背景。

哇。那好吧，再見！

Oops. Oh well, goodbye!