In response to Stephen001
Stephen001 wrote:
I guess now is a fair time to say "we'll keep an eye on things"? :P Generally we'd like people to be respectful in how they deliver their opinions, and likewise we like people to be respectful of the opinions of othedrs. That doesn't mean people have to agree, or even feel the other viewpoint is even sane, but we do require a bit of decorum.

I don't know if I'd say this is a "fair time" to speak up. Better late than never.

Not to air laundry, but I thought you are mod too? :P
In response to Stephen001
Stephen001 wrote:
Not to air laundry, but I thought you are mod too? :P

Did you read ter's post?

He mentioned he resigned.
I'm gonna be honest, my eyes glazed over a bit.

You can't really resign anyway, it's like the Victorian concept of Navy recruitment. Once you accept the BYOND Dime, they have you for life!
In response to Stephen001
Stephen001 wrote:
Not to air laundry, but I thought you are mod too? :P

If I were a moderator, I would have settled everything by now. As Ichiro pointed out, Ter13 and I had resigned sometime last year.
In response to Stephen001
Stephen001 wrote:
Not to air laundry, but I thought you are mod too? :P

@Stephen, should I PM you to talk about whether this conversation is still being constructive? If I've been unfair and caused this topic to run its constructive course, I'm always willing to accept criticism and change.

Please feel free to delete this post and PM me if you feel that this is better suited to a PM, but I disagree that this thread needs a locking. So far everyone but a single interloper has been respectful and considerate of one another's opinions and viewpoints with one noted exception, who was quickly and judiciously expunged yet again.

I feel we're trying to discuss an issue that is an actual concern and so far everyone has been much more tolerant and contemplative on the matter than usual.

I really think locking the topic is a mistake, unless I'm of course not seeing something that is a major issue. I'm aware that calling a user out in specific is generally in poor form as it inspires baited threads, trolling, and cross-post drama when users feel they can't put their own two cents in, but in this case, I've been abundantly careful to highlight demeanor and stated intent for the purpose of demonstrating an actual shortfall in peoples' understanding of the context of an issue that is concerning to numerous people.

I really don't want to seem like I'm being rude, insulting, or argumentative and if you feel that I am, please let me know. I will make all efforts to adjust. I think this is an important conversation to have, and it's bringing to light many things that have been quashed by forum rules that are being manipulated by people who are like it or not, exceptionally good at being given an inch and taking a mile.
Well it seemed like the core qualm was the moderators weren't doing their job, and we've kinda said we'd pick things up a bit.

The history of the matter seems neither here nor there really, owing to the fact the moderators (or I at least) know enough of it to know what's up. Kinda seems like airing it really only serves to provide a shit-show to others.
Well it seemed like the core qualm was the moderators weren't doing their job, and we've kinda said we'd pick things up a bit.

I dunno. I'm kind of not seeing how that correlates to a thread lock, though. Sure the issue has been responded to, but this isn't stack overflow. The issue isn't resolved. It's been given a reply, sure, but a promise of improvement isn't a resolution of the conversation. It's a promise of resolution of the underlying sentiment that started the thread, but there's still people actively participating civilly in the conversation and putting in their two cents. I just... I dunno, I know we always close threads like this after they've run their course, but I don't think putting an endcap on the conversation just because the point has been made is a precedent that needs be set.

This one time we had a conversation, that if correct me if I'm wrong stayed civil, stayed rational, was critical, but also constructive. Why lock? We lock the rest of these threads because they require a toning down and a de-toothing before things get really out of hand and users get themselves banned.

Kinda seems like airing it really only serves to provide a shit-show to others.

But does not letting these users continue to operate under a multitude of keys behind the scenes also contribute to their ability to undermine and degrade the community?

We've got a community of the young and those with mental disorders as our prominent outward facing regulars. This little group of users has demonstrated an ability to unhinge and manipulate users into getting themselves banned for their own amusement. They don't have to come to the forums at all to cause a shitshow. It's affecting us, and without airing it, I couldn't have demonstrated that.

How else could I have brought all of this to community-wide attention as a warning to watch out for what's really going on? Without the context provided by the backstory, people would be completely in the dark about what happened to Lugia, and who has been feeding him, encouraging his recent behavior, and basically pointing him at targets and giving him blatantly false information on which to act.

I suspected that these users were involved and it was confirmed by these self-same users. This isn't meant to be a shitshow. It's meant to be a public warning that this is happening, that these users are using the moderators' apathy and their action simultaneously to degrade this community.

Walking in here with a promise to do better is greatly appreciated. But calling users' legitimate and careful concerns a shitshow and basically making an unwarranted promise of ending a conversation that's proceeding respectfully for once is... I dunno, I feel it's a mistake and a concerning one at at that.

I respect the lot of you guys. I don't want to seem like I'm calling you guys useless, stupid, etc. Please. I'm actually asking you to take issue with my violation of guidelines when they happen. You know that I'm extremely pliable to rational and meaningful criticism. I've demonstrated repeated adjustments to my behavior and demeanor and a reconciliation with mistakes and miscommunication over the years. I don't want to be treated differently just because I'm a regular contributor. I'd like to be called out when I'm in the wrong and have that discussion if it's necessary.

...I just respectfully think that closing this topic sends the wrong message, and it's pulled us way off topic.

EDIT: Look at the b8 that's been left in this thread. The main conversation has avoided responding to it with hostility, and disagreements have been measured apologized for, statements amended, and views reconciled with opposing views.

The hostile posts have not pulled the thread apart into a shouting match like they have in the past. That should be commended, not rewarded with the usual thread-lock just because the post is meta.
In response to Kumorii
Kumorii wrote:
Realtalk: If the mods would just delete problematic threads such as this one instead of posting and contributing to the problem, the drama would be halved overnight.

Come on, guys.

Take your perfectly sensible suggestion and cram it up a dead donkey's rear end. We don't tolerate logic around here.
Also I have another issue I'd like to bring to the forefront of this discussion as I believe it requires immediate attention.

Earlier in the thread, someone stated that this thread was intended to perform a witch hunt on Lugia. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Lugia is dragon bird Pokemans. How can you perform a witch hunt on that which isn't a witch to begin with? A more appropriate phrase would be bird hunt. Please refrain from getting witches and birds confused, they are two entirely different entities.
I don't personally feel it does much but to give ego boost to some bored kids with issues, but I guess we can roll with it if you guys would like, see where it goes.
Well it seemed like the core qualm was the moderators weren't doing their job, and we've kinda said we'd pick things up a bit.

Please, if you can - start with the group of users ter mentions.

I'd like to remind everyone of this conversation in which the explicit goal of derailing and degrading the community was admitted by Johnny/Gamermania/Longcat:

I don't know much about this group.


Whatever you do, ignore Ter13 in that thread or call him out. He's putting new words in your mouth so he can argue against those words instead of yours. If you respond to him, he's going to write a pretentiously long essay on why he's always right, and his buddies will back him up for it.

They've already tried to manipulate me and probably others into acting needlessly against others. I consider this a breach of the guidelines myself, but it's your call.

To me, there is already enough evidence to associate the accounts and declare it a ban avoid as well - but this is only my opinion. At the very least, please take a look at it.
3) Don't troll. "Trolling" is posting with the intention of inciting a user or group, or otherwise getting a reaction that contributes nothing but negative energy to the discussion. This is probably the easiest way to bring down a good community.

That's it. Follow these rules and you'll be happy (but, more importantly, we'll be happy).

Don't follow them, and all that's going to happen is your posts will get deleted and you'll probably get banned.

Happy posting

Do these guidelines not apply to some multiple offense users ? Or are they just there for show like blns rules... Shots fired.
In response to IchiroKeisuke
It kind of looks like most of the users referred to by this stuff are banned anyway at the moment. I think for the few that are not, we'll see what happens in future posts, obviously taking into account the posting history we can see and whatever friction that has generated.

I would be interested in exploring the possibility of BYOND bans also; as opposed to the existing forum bans we've handed out, if the current bans don't have enough punch to them. But that'll be something discussed up in private, as we traditionally don't like to do those /too/ often.
Page: 1 2 3