OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[thejeff]

The main advantage to a temp ban when, as you say, someone has "indicated he wouldn't change", is that he is given time to change his mind. It also allows others to see that the process is followed and if a permanent ban is the eventual result, that it was earned.

Would starting with a temporary ban have changed the final outcome in this case, either for Sombre or for the public reaction? I have no idea. I do think there would be less justification to be upset with the bans, even if it wound up being several temp bans in quick succession followed by a permanent one.

[Festin]

I do not think I have ever talked with Sombre, so I hardly have any opinion on this issue. His messages looked quite unpleasant sometimes, so I can understand why Shrapnel could have decided to ban him. But the way they handled the situation was - yes, extremely unprofessional.

Does anything along these lines ever make a company look professional? My guess is no. But you know what? Do you really think we would be any more professional if we posted details about a users behavior that would potentially reflect negatively on him after he's been banned and not allowed to make posts in his own defense? That allowing people to run off other forum members, allowing name calling and the use of profane language, etc. is going to make us look more professional.

It would make you look more professional, if instead of suddenly (at least from everyone else's point of view) banning people for obscure reasons, you gave a temporary ban and a public warning that such behaviour will not be tolerated, and then, if your warning was ignored, gave a permanent ban. It is as simple as that.

Instead, it seems that the moderators have managed to offend as many people as possible.

[Gandalf Parker]

Or you could say that the moderators have consented to the voluntary actions of the individuals, then professionally refuse to talk about them in public. Its your choice of wording depending on what result you desire.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by Baalz

It’s a bit distressing how many people seem to think “they’re the rules, so you have to follow them”. “The rules” are just something somebody with some form of power wants you to do.

Do you really feel that way? This is pretty alien thinking to me, but then I am admittedly a very logical fellow most of the time.

If you were coerced into following the rules, I could understand that viewpoint, but you aren't. You aren't being forced to obey arbitrary laws you disagree with or forced to obey rules that you cannot in good conscience obey.

In order to post in this private forum you have, of your own free will and not under any form of coercion, agreed to follow the forum rules; Presumably you did this because you thought that the benefits of posting here outweighed the negative sides and the constraints on posting. This was your personal choice and nobody elses.

You can withdraw from this agreement at any time, should you no longer feel that it is to your advantage to adhere to it, by stopping posting here.

In the terminology of an older age: you have freely given your word to follow the rules.

In such a situation it is entirely natural for many and perhaps most people to think that "they're the rules, so you have to follow them". After all, if you don't, you are violating an agreement that you have entered into of your own free will. Not because somebody is oppressing you by imposing rules on you that you disagree with, but because you choose not to honour your given word: You want the benefits without the costs you have agreed to.

Is it to be expected that some people violate the rules when tempers flare and regret it afterwards? Yes, certainly it is and I know that I am as guilty of that as any, but when posting in a calm temper we all owe it to ourselves and to the community to obey the ruleset we have all agreed to follow - or to post somewhere else, which is governed by another set of rules.

[Rookierookie]

The posts that had FL, Trum and Maer banned were of the nature "Ban me you moth(censored) I dare u b(censored)" repeated several times. They were deleted or edited afterwards.

I don't think we should all be tolerant of juvenile or rash behaviour, especially if they cause collateral damage. Killing someone in the heat of the moment may not be murder, that doesn't mean that it's not a crime.

[kennydicke]

I've got no stake in this... 'argument', beyond my own personal feelings.

Though his mods are fantastic and he could be extremely helpful, I thought Sombre was often rude and a jerk and I likely would have temp-banned him long ago. And fully banned him if his behaviors continued. That is, if I was a moderator. As a simple and recent poster, I barely acknowledged his bad side because it was relatively minor and barely worthy of notice to a discerning reader.

That said, there's been a lot of apologetics going around; from both sides. There's also been nastiness, silliness and utter nonsense.

Shrapnel has been well within it's rights, even if I feel strongly that they were wrong. I don't appreciate corporate propaganda, Capitalist sentiments, right-wing and conservative tactics, or injustice in any form. Being an American, though, I must live with and accept these as everyday occurrences.

Some posters went beyond their forum-rights, even if I agreed with some of their sentiments. On both sides there was childish or rude posts and, apparently, more spam than steak.

I'll have no problems existing on both forums, nor will I indulge in the sycophantic qualities that people on both display. I also wouldn't have a problem if someone made a third forum with a different feel from either, in their current state.

Both sides were wrong, neither side was right. There were some individuals showing true insight but they were few and far between. Posting your feelings is fine, if they aren't clouding your judgment or being used to beat someone down.


I wish I was more eloquent or learned, so that I could help all of us see the actual problems here. But I'm not.

I'm just stained class, like everyone else.

Ken


EDIT:

It’s a bit distressing how many people seem to think “they’re the rules, so you have to follow them”. “The rules” are just something somebody with some form of power wants you to do.

This statement is true with the absolute metaphysical certitude that logic brings. Only someone conditioned to think otherwise would disagree.

[TwoBits]

Tim Brooks, I genuinely appreciate your response, especially as it referenced many of the things I brought up.

And as you said regarding Sombre elsewhere, "that has been beaten to death." I agree. But some people are likely to keep whomping on that dead nag, as long as their questions regarding that incident are not satisfactorily answered. That's just the way it is. You're probably right - if the PM record, and whatever other information out there was released, it would still likely wind up a matter of opinion (but then again, who really knows? without that information, all that is left is speculation).

But you know what? I'm not too upset about Sombre, or even Maerlande's bannings - whether or not I personally agree with it, they did rub a lot of people the wrong way, so I'm sure plenty of people will feel they got what was coming to them.

But as far as I recall, Trumenator and Frozen Lama rarely, if ever, rubbed anyone the wrong way. Why was it necessary to ban them?

You said, "well they wanted to be banned and were". Yes, perhaps at the time, that is what they felt. Heck, I even felt a momentary twinge of 'to hell with them fellas' while all this was at it's hottest. But I don't feel that way now. And maybe, if given a chance, they wouldn't have either. But they never got that chance to cool down and reconsider.

Like I said, I'm just some guy. And if you think I've got some axe to grind, you can look at my join date (01-11-07) and my post total (only 362, and most of them in reference to specific MP games). I'm pretty much a lurker, and I'm not friends with, never exchanged a single PM with, and have zero relationship with those who were banned.

But even so, I think that some of them, if not all of them (but again, who knows?), were treated poorly, and again I will say, unprofessionally.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Baalz

*Obviously* important members of the community deserve special consideration - they are what makes the community.

Oh great, apply this standard and you just know llamabeast is going to come in here and treat us all like his bi***es.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Valerius

Oh great, apply this standard and you just know llamabeast is going to come in here and treat us all like his bi***es.

Ive moderated many forums since the birth of the net, and multiple times as a paid job. Ive seen forums operate in many different styles. All I can say is that everything has its pros and cons.

Its not hard to find forums which openly treat people differently. Where someones opinion of who is or isnt important to that community is a factor in punishments. You can also find forums where the community itself carries out courts and punishments. And then there are forums where the rules are posted, punishments done in private conversation, and no amount of public outcry can drag out the particulars except to talk to the individuals themselves.

All of these have their pros and cons. Which one you consider to be best for a corporate owned service is an opinion for each of us to form. It appears that Shrapnel has decided. (my personal opinions or suggestions on the matter will be sent to Shrapnel in private mail rather than publicly because thats safer... um... I mean more appropriate)

[Humakty]

It's true that the transformation of what is a game community into a full grown parallel society, with it's trials and punishments, is an interesting behaviour. Isn't 'real' life a bit frustrating those days ? Is anyone in search of some 'power' through this process ?

----------

Of the inability of humans to create anything truly original. (that must be some personal frustration of mine, no doubt)