OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[WraithLord]

Hi,

I’m following with growing alarm the escalating turn of events following Sombre’s ban.
I want to make a statement or an appeal or something in between.
Please take into account that I only call what I see. I’m not on IRC, I don’t know about past grudges between players and I may have missed one or more nuances. Still, I gave it an earnest try to read the related material available here.
Yet, my views my upset some ppl, so plz bear in mind that I’ve no intention to insult/hurt/mock etc. Peace and love brothers :)

So.
I’m personally saddened by the ban and consequent bans. I think many ppl here feel the same. I believe Sombre et-al are overall positive guys. They contribute a lot to dominions and the community. They are free spirits and not shy about expressing their opinion, if at times bluntly.
That said, I also generally like the way the forums are managed. I appreciate Shrapnel’s and the moderators efforts in keeping them civil. They had a tough call on their hands and they made a decision – and I believe it was made in good faith and not out of evil, power crazed mania.
I respect the moderators and am grateful for the way the forums are maintained yet I do believe they didn’t handle the situation as well as they should or could have. As I see it, instead of disarming the bomb they chose to nuke it, as if raw power could make issues go away. It’s a mistake ppl of authority sometimes make, yet trying to fix a problem using raw power usually ends up breaking things.

And while I’m upset with the bans I’m totally against labeling the mods/staff as evil and lashing at them and at the forums. Sombre’s supporters, I believe your cause is just but you shouldn’t take the destructive path – spamming threads & picking up fights. This only makes your cause look worse. You can channel your protest into an effort to fix what was broken, not break more things.
Speaking of which, the thread “: Managing Communions - the sombre challenge.” was plain negative. It looks to me like Verjigorm was at a disadvantage due to cultural or language gap and the way he was slugged there is just ugly. That’s not what I want to see these forums turn into.
Nor should the “I’ll make your life a living hell” comment merit much fuss. It looks to be clearly good humored, although it may not have been all that funny or called for or helpful.

Bottom line: A lot of ppl are upset now. You have a right to be but don’t take it out on this place and the players that don’t have a clue.
Chill out. Talk 2 the banned guys instead. Since they are mostly positive guys I don’t think it should be impossible to un-ban them if they’ll want back.

I suggest a good ending to this episode:
Shrapnel, please allow the banned guys back. Give them a temp ban on the condition that they agree to abide by the rules - although they’ll likely always push the limits, they are overall positive and an important part of this community, we don’t want to lose them.
Sombre et-al, I hope you’d reconsider not wanting back here. You’re not punishing Shrapnel or the modds by doing that but rather the vast majority of dom players who frequent here.
Let’s all open a new page :peace:

[Quitti]

Good post. I mostly agree with you there, mending bridges would now be good for both sides, the community that are angry and the Shrapnel staff.

There will though still be people who don't want to do this due to their anger.

[Humakty]

'I walk a lonely road, the only one that I have ever known....' (from the song of a singer, I guess)

You peacemonger should beware, neutrals and pacifists are a prime target during civil wars !

[quantum_mechani]

I’m not on IRC, Ah, that crazy drug known to cause berserking madness and uncontrollable fits of trolling.

[TwoBits]

The problem is, because there are so many unresolved issues and questions regarding this whole "incident", it's going to take a long time to fade away.

Regarding the Sombre banning, all we've got is a classic, 'he said, she said' situation. You can go to the new 'exile annex' forum, and hear Sombre's side of the story, but I would find it hard to think that he'd be saying anything that didn't fully support his position. And as far as Shrapnel's side, who knows what to believe? We've just been given some rumor and innuendo of a past pattern of bad behavior.

But since Shrapnel is unable or unwilling to share documentation, who's to know the 'truth'? Unless and until Shrapnel shares those records, there are always going to be some people who doubt their sincerity. If they can't share that information, they better get used to some people being left with a bad taste in their mouth over the issue that started this whole imbroglio.

And that's another thing, it's well beyond just Sombre now. Three more people got banned, and several others have expressed their intention to pack their bags and leave for good. Was it really necessary to let it come to that?

We could all see from the Long Knives thread that those three were extremely upset. But the situation was allowed to escalate, they were given "extra rope" (a phrase I've heard a few times recently), and sure enough, it was just enough to get themselves hung.

Where are these temporary bans I've heard of? If the KotLK Three had been forced to take a time out and cool down (for 24 hours, for a week, a month, whatever), things would never have gotten to the point were a perma-banning was called for. Sure, some people would have said Shrapnel was just silencing dissent, but the situation that resulted from allowing their anger to boil over and get themselves banned has to be worse.

So now a lot of people are going to be left with bad feelings over this, and that's going to linger. Am I going to quit visiting this Forum? No - I had no personal connection with any of the banned, so I'm not taking it personally. But you know what, this whole thing has given me a bad vibe - coming here now feels a little bit like filling up on petrol from a BP station :( Will that feeling last? Probably not, but it's still a damn shame.

Are there any lessons to be learned in all this? Well, for the visitors here, I guess the lesson is watch what you say (and you know what, being civil is always a good idea), and beware of crossing the Shrapnel moderators, as they have all the power.

As for the Shrapnel powers-that-be? What can you take away from all this? Because you do have all the power. But remember what that old guy told Spider-man - with power comes responsibility! You've got to be the Big Man in these situations, and not act like a petulant child. When someone is trying to drag you down to their level (either a genuine trouble maker, or just someone who's really upset), you need to rise above it. You should stay cool, calm, and especially detached. Because if you start taking things personally, you're just lowering yourself, and that's when someone is likely to get unnecessarily hurt.

Now you folks and Shrapnel don't have to do anything. You've got the power to do as you see fit, or whatever strikes your fancy. But you know what? In my opinion, the way this whole situation has been handled has made Shrapnel seem very unprofessional. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. Continue as you are, and that feeling will likely spread - and as business people, do you really want to get a reputation for not being professionals?

Just my two cents.

[Wrana]

A pity - about Frozen Lama and Trumanator.
Let's hope they will get back in time.
I don't really know the third guy, but he was very vocal.:yawn:
You are right about enough rope to hang themselves. It would be better probably if moderators started warning earlier. Still, I'm not sure that there was a good solution to this situation. Not using force also could lead to escalation of the problem. And using it just after initial ban would also cause much uproar - as a possibility, guys who were angry at the moment and got warnings would probably react with something like: "Well, ban me, I don't care, damn Nazis!"
Let's wait and see. I'd say a result would probably occur in about a week. Then I would speak about what moderators actually achieved in short term (later bans). As for initial ban - I don't think it will have much effect on forum itself. Probably we won't see some new Sombre mods - but this should be a reason enough to do something ourselves. Better than crying out in any case.:cool:

[Soyweiser]

And using it just after initial ban would also cause much uproar - as a possibility, guys who were angry at the moment and got warnings would probably react with something like: "Well, ban me, I don't care, damn Nazis!"

Yeah but if somebody is angry and shouts this, you don't have to ban him. He got the infraction. Point was made. (Infractions are public right?). If he keeps his abuse up, just give more infractions. At 100 it is a tempban.

Shouting that you don't care is not a reason to get a ban, nor infractions. (The Nazi part perhaps is but that is a heat of the moment thing, and not something that would bother me as a mod).

[TwoBits]

The point is, you stop them from shouting to much in the first place with a temporary ban - they can't call you Nazis and demand to be banned, if they can't communicate with you for a couple days or whatever. If they come back after that time-out still breathing fire, well then, Shrapnel could say, "we tried being reasonable, but they wouldn't have any of it!" It certainly would look a lot better than the summary dismissals we've had so far, IMO.

[Humakty]

*JOKE* Well, brutal executions have at least one good point going for them : the guy won't come around complaining. *JOKE*

Well, being a mod or admin on this forum surely fills up some of their time. At least we're sure they do their job, and not squat lazily in Haway. Rather a good point for them.

[Sensori]

*JOKE* Well, brutal executions have at least one good point going for them : the guy won't come around complaining. *JOKE*

Brutal executions also have a downside to them. Making people martyrs. :p Also, they work well to make the people angrier and more rebellious than they would otherwise been!

[Soyweiser]

*JOKE* Well, brutal executions have at least one good point going for them : the guy won't come around complaining. *JOKE*

Brutal executions also have a downside to them. Making people martyrs. :p Also, they work well to make the people angrier and more rebellious than they would otherwise been!

The same with kings constantly stepping in and doing the work of their minions.

OffT, I still wanted to say this:
About the Communions thread. It was made clear on page 1 that it was an ironic thread. You cannot get more clearer than: "You guys missed the irony and thought this was a serious post.
... [drivel removed] ... you might want to check out other threads about user Sombre."

And if the mods want people to "make their own conclusions", please just post the PM's made between Sombre and the mods. It would clear up a lot. Probably prove that the Sombre camp isn't totally on the side of right. (As I still think that Sombre's pms where not all butterflies and sunshine, and if it was. Just saying "oops, we overreacted" is possible. People make mistakes).

But currently all that is being done is showing only one point of the argument. The (arguably bad for the Sombre camp) communions thread is revived. But the whole PM and "we have been watching him for some time" stuff is not. Bit Hypocritical. Either do nothing about the whole problem, and don't release any more details (as promised by Annette at first). Or provide transparency in this issue.

[Humakty]

'But....But... I'd have to prove them guilty first ? How unpractical...'

Henri the eigth, about his wives.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not exactly sure of the numbers here.
I highly expect that no one is going to enter these threads jumping up and down doing the happy dance over someone being banned. In fact, I dont remember that ever happening with any ban. On the other hand, I wouldnt necessarily chalk up the lack of comment by most of the forum to mean they are unhappy with what happened. If anything, I think it might be more reasonable to consider the silent majority to be silent for a reason.

We arent going to know how often or what level of complaints Shrapnel gets about someone. We arent going to know why they do things. This is not unusual here. Its not unusual on any corporate server.

If you want a way to move on, then just accept that Shrapnel has an idea of what type of forums they want. And they have that right. Its their forums, on their machines, being offered for free. You have a right to disagree (someplace else), or you can join the ones in question who appear to have voluntarily called down punishments on themselves.

Over the last year Ive been tempted to give up and I have often considered just creating my own forum on Dom3Minions. But we all know how that goes. I talk about it, Sombre comments on my talking about it, then Sombre actually does it. And.... here we are again. Sombre actually did what I just thought about. I wish both the old forum (here) and the new forum (there) well in their endeavors.

Hopefully this doesnt violate my NAP with Shrapnel

[Humakty]

@Gandalf : Uh, is all this about my jokes ? Not like if I was militating for the ones or the others(but it is very true I find all this fuss very funny). But I'm not a very educated or serious person, mind you.

But you're very right, everyone should respect our hosts decision. I'll try to refrain from 'funny' interventions in the future, concerning subjects that most consider very serious indeed.

PS : Oh yeah, the stuff about salt on fresh wounds... Got it now. Hope we'll all laugth about it in near future.

[TwoBits]

If you want a way to move on, then just accept that Shrapnel has an idea of what type of forums they want. And they have that right. Its their forums, on their machines, being offered for free. You have a right to disagree (someplace else), or you can join the ones in question who appear to have voluntarily called down punishments on themselves.

Sure, it's Shrapnel's forum, and they can do what they want. But they should try to hold themselves to a higher standard. And it would be in their own self interest to do so, as it would look more professional.

Me, I'm just some guy. On the internet, you might expect a modicum of decency out of me. But maybe, as some guy, I'm a joker, or I get easily offended, or I think I know a lot. Some guys can often be irritating. But again, I think moderators for a business web site should not be acting like some guy. And because they have power, they should be extra careful about acting like just some guy. Because they're not - they have power, and they represent an institution. They should be better than that.

[Soyweiser]

Hopefully this doesnt violate my NAP with Shrapnel
Que? Care to explain?

[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. In human interaction there are many forms of power and “the authorities” only wield the most obvious and blunt. Community leaders also wield a form of power, it’s more subtle but can be just as powerful. Obviously the stakes are dramatically lower, but this is really no different than the pattern of behavior you see mirrored in the real world. People tend to riot/protest because of perceived government oppression. It’s caused by a break between “we’ve got the guns so you’re gonna do what we say for your own good” and “you are not the leaders we follow, you’re just bullies with guns”.

This whole episode doesn’t really have much to do with the specifics of he said she said, it’s really about considerable annoyance at feeling bullied. “The Rules” conflicted with the unspoken and informal rules of the community. “Don’t break the rules unless you want the consequences of doing so” cuts both ways…it’s just community rules are enforced by a kind of group persona and aren’t clearly listed anywhere. The rule that was broken by the admins was “thou shall not do things whose net effect is to remove value from the community” as well as “treat people with the respect that they’ve earned”. The admins presumably think they violated neither of these things, but the problem is that between having hidden exchanges/private messages as well as just different perspectives the feeling by those who are angry is that they did. Then compounded it by saying “well, that’s just the way it is because I said so”.

Sure, the powers that be have the power of force, but you can’t build/maintain a community with that. Presumably that’s the entire purpose for having these forums so there are limits to what they can do short of pulling the plug and saying screw the whole thing. I doubt they’d admit it, but I think that if it was possible to secretly go back and undo this whole affair that would be a no brainer. You just can’t do the equivalent of tossing a community leader in a jail with no (public) trial without expecting the equivalent of riots/protests and considerable collateral damage. That’s the consequence of this being a very mature community that’s developed over a considerable time. I guess we’ll see now how bad the fallout damage is.

[Humakty]

Sombre his not seemingly opposed to the use of brute force, if you read carefully his interventions. At least some of them are a little brutal.

[Gandalf Parker]

Hopefully this doesnt violate my NAP with Shrapnel
Que? Care to explain?
Just putting it in Dom terms. Anyone who has been slapped here basically ends up with a Non-Aggression Pact of some sort. Its fairly common as part of the process here to get a small lecture where you promise not to do it again, or not to bait/troll that person again, or not to incite mutiny/riots again. Ive just always jokingly referred to mine as a NAP like we have in the game. (altho referring to the NAP is in itself kindof a slight violation of the NAP)

We dont know of course since Shrapnel does not make such things public. But I think its fairly obvious that some of the people we are talking about had ups and downs in their attitudes here which made me highly suspect that they also were operating under a NAP with Shrapnel and so I purposely tried to avoid making it any harder on them.

@TwoBits
I disagree. I disagree that they should because I disagree that they did not do it in the first place. Nor that there would be any huge benefit in it. I recognize your opinions in the matter but I wouldnt necessarily say they should be stated as facts as though the entire forum would see it that way. If this bothers you alot I will point to the title beneath my avatar. I disagree with that also but it has helped in the past with discussions like this to note who has what titles.
:)

[Tim Brooks]

Having been a bystander through most of this and owner of these forums, here is my take.

I’m personally saddened by the ban and consequent bans

Having talked to everyone involved I can assure you that Shrapnel Games, the admins and the moderators feel the same way.

They are free spirits and not shy about expressing their opinion, if at times bluntly.

Agreed, but bluntness is so easily misinterpreted. In the process of expressing their opinions with bluntness they ran people (mainly new members, but also some regulars) off of these forums. This is not the way Shrapnel Games wants these forums to operate. And the escalating bluntness was where we drew the line.

although they’ll likely always push the limits, they are overall positive and an important part of this community, we don’t want to lose them.

Pushing the limits - that is what we are no longer willing to tolerate. And yes, they were important to the community. And still are. They are free to continue to make mods, find a community that is willing to put up with their behavior, and support Dominions.

We said originally that we would consider having them back, but that they must follow the rules. This is the disconnect to me. Sombre was banned because he was given this choice. The moderators asked him to follow the rules and play nice. His reponse was I will continue in the way I always have and ignore your requests asking me to change my behavior.

And as far as Shrapnel's side, who knows what to believe? We've just been given some rumor and innuendo of a past pattern of bad behavior.

You know. The admins and moderators just yesterday had a discussion about this. Should we have an open door policy when it comes to forum discipline? I am still of the opinion that what people say in PMs should remain private unless they give their consent. And I still believe that contacting people by PM and asking them to follow the rules is a better choice than making every instance of this public.

But since Shrapnel is unable or unwilling to share documentation, who's to know the 'truth'? Unless and until Shrapnel shares those records, there are always going to be some people who doubt their sincerity. If they can't share that information, they better get used to some people being left with a bad taste in their mouth over the issue that started this whole imbroglio.

And once the documentation is shared, there will still be two sides, as we have seem through this whole fiasco. Is it not true that whatever we shared would be open to interpretation? I think so. The ban to Sombre came because we interpreted what he said. In the last eleven years, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. We went into the ban on Sombre totally knowing that 'people would be left with a bad taste in their mouth'.

Three more people got banned, and several others have expressed their intention to pack their bags and leave for good. Was it really necessary to let it come to that?

It is sad that it came to that. But predictable.

Where are these temporary bans I've heard of?

This seems to be a sticking point for alot of people. The three banned after Sombre, well they wanted to be banned and were. Temp bans only work with people who are willing to change. Sombre indicated he wouldn't change (yes, that is how we interpreted what he said). Why temp ban someone who told you he would ignore your descipline measures? To make the community feel better? See I don't believe it would have made the community any happier. After we got to the permanent ban, we would be right back here doing this anyway.

In my opinion, the way this whole situation has been handled has made Shrapnel seem very 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.

The bottom line. We did what we did not out of anger. Not because we disliked people. And definitly not to make people angry. We took action because we felt we had to. Every day Shrapnel Games makes decisions. Usually they are right, but sometimes they are wrong. But you know, you go into it with your eyes wide open and you live with the consequences.

Thanks for listening.

[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]

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]

*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]

*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.
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)

[TwoBits]

This "special consideration" argument is tangential. If Sombre indeed previously received special consideration by the Shrapnel moderators because of his contributions, it was a mistake. As said before, that kindly bit of "extra rope" only served to get him 'hung' (again, if that really was the case).

But what does that 'special consideration' have to do with the KotLK Three? Forget about Sombre - he's likely never coming back (probably as much due to his own pride and choices at this point, as opposed to anything Shrapnel has to say).

Three other people got banned though, in the heat of the moment, and as far as I know, 'special considerations' had nothing to do with that! And several other people have (or said they will have) taken a permanent walk.

So lets just forget about Sombre the Martyr (love him or hate him) for a moment, and consider for a minute if those other folks got a fair shake.

[Stagger Lee]

...
But what does that 'special consideration' have to do with the KotLK Three?
...


Are they now known as the Knights of the Long Knives? ;)

[llamabeast]

Would starting with a temporary ban have changed the final outcome in this case, either for Sombre or for the public reaction?

In my opinion, clearly yes. I'm very surprised not everyone thinks the same thing. The public reaction has been the damaging thing, and I can't imagine anything like the same public reaction to a temporary ban. If multiple temporary bans led eventually to a permanent ban, there would be no outcry because it would have been obvious that it was coming.

In my opinion the single biggest lesson Shrapnel should take from this is never to permanently ban someone without resorting to temporary bans first.

[Humakty]

Truly, does it matter ? Admins and mods seem to have decided to have a firm attitude around here, and opposing them directly will only, most likely, reinforce their resolution. They ask for some discipline around here, they could have to answer to what is allowed on their forum as far as I know.

But permanent ban from a game forum is a harsh punishement indeed. But if everyone camps on its positions, the holder of the place wins the day. I mean that, of course he will.

[lch]

If multiple temporary bans led eventually to a permanent ban, there would be no outcry because it would have been obvious that it was coming.

ACK. As somebody who found out late about this when it all was over, the only thing I can say is: I didn't see it coming, but I am not surprised.

[Gandalf Parker]

Much of this strikes me as a moot point if even that.
I understand why some people here feel this is new territory to be debated but others might remember that this conversation has all gone on before. I can remember at least 3 of similar levels. Useful popular person banned followed by public commentary and volunteers joining in exile.

Also, of the 4 people involved, I can only think of one who MAYBE did not amount to raising his hand and volunteering to be nuked. Who MIGHT come back.

[TwoBits]

Well Gandalf (and to be sure, I've definitely noticed the numerous useful contributions you've made to this site), I've only been around since 07, and I can't remember anything like this (meaning, banning for anything other than cheating or piracy, etc.). So forgive me if it's all still a big ugly shock to me, despite the whole affair undoubtedly being a familiar stock story to some (and I can genuinely see that, but I don't hang out at many other forums - I guess I don't get out much).

And as far as the four people involved, if there's only one who got 'the shaft' (meaning, was not treated equitably by the Shrapnel powers that be), that's still one too many, whether or not they're willing to swallow their pride (and I think there should be a whole heck of pride-swallowing going on at this point, all around, but I doubt it will happen) and want to come back.


Much of this strikes me as a moot point if even that.
I understand why some people here feel this is new territory to be debated but others might remember that this conversation has all gone on before. I can remember at least 3 of similar levels. Useful popular person banned followed by public commentary and volunteers joining in exile.

Also, of the 4 people involved, I can only think of one who MAYBE did not amount to raising his hand and volunteering to be nuked. Who MIGHT come back.

[Hadrian_II]

Personally i think that the whole sombre banning was a huge mistake, but i also know that shrapnelgames owns the forums, and that they may do whatever they want in them.

But even if sombre had a tendency to answer in the RTFM style and i can understand that people might be annoyed by him. But i think the big problem is that if you try to make a place nice by removing all bad influence from it you tend to remove all people from the place in the end, as everyone has bad days when he acts bad. So in my opinion banning sombre because he was not a nice guy is much worser, that to loose some people who expect that everywhere they go everything has to be made nice and clean for them, as i think that this kind of people cannot be a benefit to a community.

Also a lot of arguments are made because the "rules" where broken, i think all these arguments are worthless, as you may kick someone because he is negative for the community, but if you kick a good and creative person because he does not abide the rules it starts to look like trashy satire about the soviets.

btw. i hope my bad writing skills combined with my medicore grasp of english were able to make some sense.

[GrudgeBringer]

I am older than most in this forum and I have no dog in this hunt. However, that being said I was a paid Moderator for Sierra in the mid 90's to around 2002. I was what they called a red shirt, when I entered the room my icon turned RED and everyone knew the MAN was there (I played the games also).

We had baiters to see how far they could push me before I kicked them out, and we had times when a cooling off period was called for.

I had 3 triggers...1. I just booted them completely out of SIGS and they could come back in 2 minutes. 2. A one week Ban (that could be appealed to the Gods that be) 3. A complete ban (that I had to fill out a whole ton of paperwork on why, etc).

I only say this because I see both sides....

Sombre and I had a set to the first 3 days I was on here and asked a question he thought was beneath anyone answering (especially him). Well, not being the backing off type we went at it for 3 pages and then it just went away. To this day I think he is a P***K.

But he also made a lot of mods that I used and enjoyed and to be honest we never spoke to one another agian.

What I DON'T understand is why he wasn't just taken aside at some point and givin an ultimatum. OR, just told to stay out of the forum if he couldn't keep his mouth shut (he never played any games anyway) or this would be the outcome. This isn't the first time his sarcastic tone was used in here and he probably DID run off a few. But what I have found in life is that those people make themselves seem MORE important by belittling others.
But he certainly was gifted in his own world of modding.

I am good friends with Truman and FL and will more than likely be on both forums because I DO have friends on both forums.

What I don't understand is this (and it is my opinion and we all know what opinions are like). You either TRUST your mods to make the right decision or you don't. The problem I see is that Shrapnel doesn't really give the mods any power other than the respect they have earned themselves on here.

Then when a problem arises the Big Guns come in and start blasting away because it IS their forum and they want it run a certain way. I think we all down deep know that it is their ballgame and their rules (I mean if you are playing BB in a gym and keep knocking people to the floor, someone is going to ask you to not come back regardless if you are Mike Smith or Mike Jordon).

Good 'ol' Mikes friends are going to leave and not come back, but new guys are going to come in and the game goes on.

So I am saying this...AGIAN you either trust your mods or you don't. Give them some actual power and they will nip this stuff in the bud because they are HERE on the forum. Only bring the big guns when the mods yell for help, let them police the forum and hand out minor infractions (after all, from what I have seen they have all earned respect on here from the players) Only have the big guys when the wagons have to be circled and we wouldn't be having these problems, and I wouldn't have to write a manuscript.

[Rookierookie]

What I DON'T understand is why he wasn't just taken aside at some point and givin an ultimatum. OR, just told to stay out of the forum if he couldn't keep his mouth shut (he never played any games anyway) or this would be the outcome.
I am under the impression that this was in fact the case, except it was done in private.

Only bring the big guns when the mods yell for help, let them police the forum and hand out minor infractions (after all, from what I have seen they have all earned respect on here from the players) Only have the big guys when the wagons have to be circled and we wouldn't be having these problems, and I wouldn't have to write a manuscript.
I believe that this was also what happened, it was the mods who chose to refer to the admins.

[Foodstamp]

Sombre and I had a set to the first 3 days I was on here and asked a question he thought was beneath anyone answering (especially him). Well, not being the backing off type we went at it for 3 pages and then it just went away. To this day I think he is a P***K.

This is exactly the issue I had with the guy. If he felt the question wasn't worthy, not only did he want to smart off, he didn't want anyone else answering the person's question. I cannot even begin to comprehend why it was so offensive to him that people wouldn't join along with his little game and would instead actually try to be helpful to the person.

[Gandalf Parker]

I didnt say one got shafted. Im not doubting the action. What Im saying is that the other 3 seem to have basically volunteered to be banned. And the 4th is apparently not interested. This accomplishes nothing.

I dont want to disparage. But personally I dont see this as an effort by shrapnel to control the forums. I see it as an action which might actually shake loose efforts by others to control the forums.

[GrudgeBringer]

That is my point...they didn't have any real power to do anything but ask for the 'Big Guns'. And usually when that second Cop shows up when you are stopped...someone goes to jail.

[Kheldron]

You just can’t do the equivalent of tossing a community leader in a jail with no (public) trial without expecting the equivalent of riots/protests and considerable collateral damage.

Except imho tossing him in jail would have been a tempban. What they did was shotting him in the head without a public trial.

@Tim Brooks : it actually is the whole point of jail in real life/ tempban in these forums. You give people a chance to redeem themselves.
To say that it would have changed nothing and that they would eventually have done it again and again is to judge someone on mere intent at best.

Well, you write and interpret the rules as you wish (u're the boss after all) but don't expect the community to swallow that easily, especially when the penalty for this is death (of an avatar, but death sentence nonetheless)

The thing is there ARE real people behind those avatars and they react according to what they think is just or plainly wrong, according to the laws in real life.
We can debate for hours on end on the fact that it's no public place and that real life rules don't apply here, it can't be that easy when each and everyone behind the avatars feel it in their bones that it's wrong according to real life standards, OUR standards.

Sorry if I put any more oil on the bonfire but I had to spill my 2 cents. Just like everyone else it needs to come out.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually it was more like he was being delivered to jail for a minor infraction, and decided to jump the guard who shot him in the head

[Psycho]

On the other hand, I wouldnt necessarily chalk up the lack of comment by most of the forum to mean they are unhappy with what happened. If anything, I think it might be more reasonable to consider the silent majority to be silent for a reason.

I just wanted to comment on this. I didn't say anything so far, since I didn't have any wise words that were not already said. But, the fact is that I am very dissatisfied by the whole situation and I can't imagine anyone not being.

Basically, the mods should have handled the situation much better. Things that llama and Festin wrote - these conclusions come naturally to me and I am surprised that mods think otherwise.

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.

Would starting with a temporary ban have changed the final outcome in this case, either for Sombre or for the public reaction?
In my opinion, clearly yes. I'm very surprised not everyone thinks the same thing. The public reaction has been the damaging thing, and I can't imagine anything like the same public reaction to a temporary ban. If multiple temporary bans led eventually to a permanent ban, there would be no outcry because it would have been obvious that it was coming.

[Tim Brooks]

That is my point...they didn't have any real power to do anything but ask for the 'Big Guns'. And usually when that second Cop shows up when you are stopped...someone goes to jail.

GrudgeBringer:

This is not true. The mods can and do have the power to ban anyone they think needs banning. We trust their decisions. In fact they have exercised this right in the last couple of days. How it came about that Annette actually did the banning of Sombre I am not sure. I am under the impression that the Mods available at the time were in total agreement with this.

Let me just say that I am glad it was Annette who did the banning, as she has been called everything from a liar to a prissy self important offendable drama queen. I am glad our volunteer mods didn't have to take the abuse.

On a side note: Are you ex-Military?

Regards,

[TwoBits]

Let me just say that I am glad it was Annette who did the banning, as she has been called everything from a liar to a prissy self important offendable drama queen. I am glad our volunteer mods didn't have to take the abuse.

On a side note: Are you ex-Military?

Regards,

Tim, I'm also glad then it was Annette who did the banning (although I'm sorry for all the childish crap insults she had to swallow - I guess that's the kind of garbage can expect from some guys, but I'm sure it still sucks), and not the volunteer moderators.

But then I take it Annette is not a volunteer? Meaning she's getting a paycheck from Shrapnel? Well, maybe that paycheck should include having a somewhat thicker skin, and the ability to shrug of the occasional nonsense from the occasionally troublesome poster.

Hey, I'm not saying she or you need to suck up endless amounts of crap. But you should have the ability to shrug plenty of that kind of stuff off. I mean, you're the Big Shots, right? You're getting a paycheck for this, not like us other clowns with too much free-time on our hands.

That gets back to the whole professionalism argument. Yeah, Sombre was a border-line troll (and maybe Maerlande too, but Trumenator and Frozen Lama also?), and so maybe it was ultimately necessary to get rid of him.

But was how you did it (done by apparently paid members of the Shrapnel organization?) the best way possible? And how does that relate to the following banning of the KotLK Three, anyway?

And, just to talk about trying to keep things impersonal, professional, detached, etc., how does asking GrudgeBringer if he's "ex-Military" have anything at all to do with what we're talking about?

Shrapnel people, I think you should take a giant step back, and give yourselves a 24 hour temporary ban! Collect yourselves! Cool down, and get that detached mentality you sorely need in this situation.

We appreciate hearing your contributions to this otherwise difficult 'situation', but as the responsible, power-holding folks you most certainly are, maybe you can't afford knee-jerk, off-the-cuff replies to what's going on.

[Gandalf Parker]

But if you approach someone on one violation, and they fire off in your face, then it has to step up.
Not doing so would be for what? Because it might piss off some people in the forum?

[thejeff]

I'm still not sure why a temp ban isn't the right step, even when "they fire off in your face".
Maybe they had a bad day. Maybe they were drunk at the time. A temp ban lets the situation cool off and lets them come back and behave if they want to.
Of course, maybe they're just jerks and the ban will wear off and they'll start back up. Then they've been given the chance and you hit them with the big hammer.
As for someone asking for a permanent ban, give them a temporary one. They don't have to come back.

[lch]

I'm still not sure why a temp ban isn't the right step, even when "they fire off in your face".
Maybe they had a bad day. Maybe they were drunk at the time. A temp ban lets the situation cool off and lets them come back and behave if they want to.
Of course, maybe they're just jerks and the ban will wear off and they'll start back up. Then they've been given the chance and you hit them with the big hammer.
As for someone asking for a permanent ban, give them a temporary one. They don't have to come back.

That seems to be the usual way to handle things on forums that I have experienced so far, yes.

I can see that Shrapnel Games strive to keep the forums calm and that Annette has thick skin, but if somebody is suddenly axed without any prior indication then it doesn't look like that to others.

[TwoBits]

But if you approach someone on one violation, and they fire off in your face, then it has to step up.
Not doing so would be for what? Because it might piss off some people in the forum?

Gandalf, dang, that's why you shut them down with a temporary ban - they cant "fire off in our face". You don't have to hear them rant about Nazis and such. Not until they've suffered (and at this point, for the good of Shrapnel's image, and the general community well being, it should be made public somewhere) a temporary ban of some sort.

If they come back after that ban, still spitting venom, well there you go - they asked for it, I mean really, not an innuendo "they asked for it", but a fully public, demonstrably to all, asking for it.

If Trumenator or Frozen Lama had been publicly warned (lets just forget about the other two at this point) and kept out of the forums for some period of time, but then came back blazing away with piss and vinegar, I would say "let em' rot!".

But the way they were canned, I don't like it. I don't like it enough to make a more or less lurker like me get all upset enough about it to spend an evening posting about it.

Well, I'll get busy with real life soon enough, that or my wife will yell at me for wasting time while bombs go off in NY, oil destroys Mardi-Gras, and Greeks riot in the streets, etc., etc... And then Shrapnel wont have to worry about me so much.

But I still wont like it, I just wont post so much.

[rdonj]

Actually it was more like he was being delivered to jail for a minor infraction, and decided to jump the guard who shot him in the head

If by jumping the guard, you mean casually letting the guard know that you really don't mind being in jail, because they have decent food there.

[krpeters]

Possibly OT, but possibly relevant:

Has anyone from IllWinter had anything to say on this yet? Because this isn't just about a Shrapnel Games product; IllWinter has a stake in this community too.

[Gandalf Parker]

Possibly OT, but possibly relevant:

Has anyone from IllWinter had anything to say on this yet?
Yes. But, like most of this, not publicly.

[rdonj]

I certainly hope no one has been bugging illwinter over this matter. It really has nothing to do with them, and there's no reason for them to come out in support of any side or position. Personally I don't think they need to take a position on it.

[Tim Brooks]

I want to make this perfectly clear to all. Illwinter was not involved in this decision on any level. We have intentionally not talked with them, before, during, or after this decision.

Regards,

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry. Didnt mean to give such an impression. Only that they are aware so no one needs to feel the need to contact them.
They do have social contacts and forums outside of this.

[zlefin]

and blow down the little piggy's house! wait, someone arleady did? who? oh well, nevermind then.

[Sicaire]

@ Tim brooks, Annette and other intrusive moderators/admin

i just cant understand how any moderator could ever possibly felt like he would achieve something even remotely beneficial to the community by banning those fellows.

we want our modders back.

moderators, please keep spam and illegal stuff like piracy and the like out and - please - just - dont - ever - get - involved for anyhting more than that because you are not bringing any value to this game and in this recent case you actually destroyed value.

i am not (yet) a contributor (except through the fact that I brought more than a couple of my friends to buy this game) to these forums, but i dont care if i read anyhting harsh cause you know this is just a forum and i can just skip those posts i dont want to read.

but i want to find mods because they bring me value.

it might even be that some day I will make my own mods or maps and post them here because fellow modders will have inspired me and helped me do so.

you moderators wont ever do that.

so please, keep out, just keep the thing basically functional.

those are not your forums, those are your customers' forums because WE make all this possible by buying the games. you are just here to maintain the whole thing working. i dont want to be harsh but stick to your professionnal tasks and dont get personal or worse, dont try to show us how to behave.

we'll handle the rest.

thanks.

[Gandalf Parker]

Llol

[Rookierookie]

I thought about pointing out the fact that when you bought the game you bought the game software, and that the publisher is not actually obliged to provide a forum for it.

Then I decided that it was pointless.

[thejeff]

No. Even without piracy and spam and the like, trolling and other abusive behavior can destroy a community. I've seen it happen. More than once.

You can just skip the harsh posts you don't want to read, until they and the responses and flame wars they generate become 99% of the traffic. The serious posts become lost in a sea of garbage and everyone but the trolls stop bothering.

Some form of moderation is required. Someone has to have the power to delete posts and ban users. On a commercial site, it's going to be the owners and whoever they delegate.

Note that I'm not saying this particular action was right, just arguing against the claim that Shrapnel shouldn't be involved.

[S.R. Krol]

those are not your forums, those are your customers' forums because WE make all this possible by buying the games. you are just here to maintain the whole thing working. i dont want to be harsh but stick to your professionnal tasks and dont get personal or worse, dont try to show us how to behave. we'll handle the rest.

I'm fairly certain if you do a WHOIS you'll find that these really are our forums. In case I missed the news though and you're now part of the ownership can I have a raise?

[Valerius]

*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.
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)

Just to clarify, I don't really think there should be different standards based on a person's status in the community (as I mentioned in one of the other threads on this topic). I was just making a joke to try to lighten things up, but I can see how it reads the way you interpreted it.

Would starting with a temporary ban have changed the final outcome in this case, either for Sombre or for the public reaction?

In my opinion, clearly yes. I'm very surprised not everyone thinks the same thing. The public reaction has been the damaging thing, and I can't imagine anything like the same public reaction to a temporary ban. If multiple temporary bans led eventually to a permanent ban, there would be no outcry because it would have been obvious that it was coming.

I'm not at all sure this would have been the case. Perhaps if there were a consensus regarding Sombre's behavior, but I think the recent discussions have made it clear that isn't so. I think there would have been arguments about whether the temp bans were justified, whether the temp bans should ever lead to a permanent ban, etc. Perhaps some of the moderates in the middle of this argument would have been swayed but since a lot of this comes down to a person's reaction to Sombre's behavior it seems like it would have ended up with largely with the same division in opinion as now. If someone thinks his behavior is acceptable (or at least worth putting up with) why would they think even a temp ban is justified? A series of temp bans might have defused the situation by making the process gradual but it might also have just dragged it out and caused more damage. Of course if the temp bans succeeded in changing his behavior that would be one thing - but does anyone really think that likely?

[rdonj]

Eh... when maerlande was temp banned, no one really made a fuss. If sombre had been temp banned, certainly people would have been miffed, especially given how divided we all are on just how serious his banning offense was. The levels of vitriol would have been much lower though, and the other bannings would almost certainly been avoided. Not that this sort of speculation really helps things where we are now :)



Anyway it seems this has been discussed to death at this point. It's time we move forward and try to find whatever positives we can in all this. And hopefully shrapnel has learned from the ugliness of this episode, and will listen to some of the suggestions made by the community to make any potential future bannings much less ugly.

[Valerius]

Anyway it seems this has been discussed to death at this point. It's time we move forward and try to find whatever positives we can in all this.

I agree with that sentiment. The above post is my last on this topic.

So ... back to Crossbows vs. Longbows? Or maybe a nice, relaxing monkey PD discussion?

Edit: One last thing. Truman and Frozen clearly crossed the line and were looking to be banned but I've had only positive interactions with them before this point and they've been helpful forum members. So, once they cool off, if they're interested in returning I think they deserve a second chance.

[Lingchih]

There is a new forum:

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?

Nothing is banned or moderated there. It's a bit wheels off, but freedom of speech is honored there.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Nothing is banned or moderated there. It's a bit wheels off, but freedom of speech is honored there.
You are aware that the issue of how a private forum is moderated is not at all related to the issue of freedom of speech, yes?

As an example, if I say that in my house nobody is allowed to say anything at all and invite you in as a guest, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated when I expect you to shut up and choose to throw you out, should you start talking. (You might rightfully question my sanity by that point should you feel so inclined, but freedom of speech just doesn't enter the equation).

Ignoring that for the moment, good luck with the new forum! :)

[Daynarr]

Actually, It's more like I invite someone in my house and he starts calling me a (insert insult here). I throw him out and he says I violated his freedom of speech.

[13lackGu4rd]

Nothing is banned or moderated there. It's a bit wheels off, but freedom of speech is honored there.
You are aware that the issue of how a private forum is moderated is not at all related to the issue of freedom of speech, yes?

As an example, if I say that in my house nobody is allowed to say anything at all and invite you in as a guest, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated when I expect you to shut up and choose to throw you out, should you start talking. (You might rightfully question my sanity by that point should you feel so inclined, but freedom of speech just doesn't enter the equation).

Ignoring that for the moment, good luck with the new forum! :)

it's funny when you speak so valiantly about a topic yet you are so clueless about it... local rules, be it your house, a forum, a country's laws, or whatever else, do not affect the freedom of speech which is a universal concept. you're saying that you can do whatever you want in your house/forums and it won't damage the freedom of speech, so what happens in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela or any of the Communist countries(not these days but back when Communism prevailed there)? they didn't damage the freedom of speech because it's their country, so they can do whatever they want in it? :doh:

or wait, countries are different because they are everyone's, right...? :angel see, that's where you're wrong! countries are not for everyone, it's the liberal/democratic system that claims as such, but not all countries are liberal/democracies so this doesn't apply to the concept of a county as a whole.

freedom of speech is an absolute concept. however it is never kept 100%, it is always damaged to a degree. the question is how far are you going to damage the freedom of speech, or how tight/loose of a leash you put on it. and it doesn't matter whether it's a forum, your home, a country, your work place, the UN or whatever else. so please, don't come here and tell us that because you agree with Shrapnel's stance on this incident, which many including myself claim was within their right to do so, didn't affect the freedom of speech. that, my friend, is called hypocrisy!

[Gandalf Parker]

Except that this is not a country. This is Internet.

And..
everything has its pros/cons. Even free speech. Its not how much you are willing to damage it.
Its where on the scale do you wish to be balancing its benefits vs its detriments.
(hint: neither extreme tends to be a good answer)

[Peter Ebbesen]

it's funny when you speak so valiantly about a topic yet you are so clueless about it... local rules, be it your house, a forum, a country's laws, or whatever else, do not affect the freedom of speech which is a universal concept.

Clueless, am I?

As a concept of universal rights, you have the right to seek information, to receive information, and to express information. Moreover, the means of expression is not limited to any specific medium, you have the right to express it via any medium.

This does not, however, give you the right to do this wherever you want saying whatever you want without consequences to your actions. In my example, where I forbid talking in my house, I have not violated your rights to express information. I have not sought to prevent you from obtaining or receiving specific or general information. I have merely applied a sanction to you (evicting you from my property) that I am granted by another right (my right to decide who gets to be on my property for whatever reason I see fit). The latter right might possibly conflict with other rights (universal or not).

So, while not a violation of the universal concept, it might be a violation of a non-universal practical interpretation as codified by laws; However, most such laws dealing with practical interpretations deal with freedom of speech in public.

[13lackGu4rd]

it's funny when you speak so valiantly about a topic yet you are so clueless about it... local rules, be it your house, a forum, a country's laws, or whatever else, do not affect the freedom of speech which is a universal concept.

Clueless, am I?

As a concept of universal rights, you have the right to seek information, to receive information, and to express information. Moreover, the means of expression is not limited to any specific medium, you have the right to express it via any medium.

This does not, however, give you the right to do this wherever you want saying whatever you want without consequences to your actions. In my example, where I forbid talking in my house, I have not violated your rights to express information. I have not sought to prevent you from obtaining or receiving specific or general information. I have merely applied a sanction to you (evicting you from my property) that I am granted by another right (my right to decide who gets to be on my property for whatever reason I see fit). The latter right might possibly conflict with other rights (universal or not).

So, while not a violation of the universal concept, it might be a violation of a non-universal practical interpretation as codified by laws; However, most such laws dealing with practical interpretations deal with freedom of speech in public.

nice argument, too bad it was entirely off topic. the passage I quoted of you clearly said that is doesn't violate the freedom of speech if you tell somebody who arrived at your home to not say a single word. you claimed it doesn't violate the freedom of speech when Shrapnel perma banned Sombre and others for speaking their minds, no matter how they said it. that was what you said and is what I corrected you on. in that passage alone you didn't mention consequences, limits of freedom of speech, etc, you just claimed it doesn't apply in these situations, because it's comfortable to you that it won't.

also, why bring the right for information and all these other things into it? there's absolutely no relevance... now, I clearly said that freedom of speech has its limitations. even the most liberal places have some limitations on it, good job for stating the obvious there! however you can't deny that these limitations are arguable, and it's a very thin line that has no clear boundaries. also you can't just dismiss things when they don't suit your agenda, and rambling off topic to prove a false point is just dumb...

[Annette]

Please, gentlemen, let's keep this civil. Shrapnel Games' policy regarding freedom of speech is found under the "Terms of Use" section in "Forum Rules."

[lch]

I thought this was over in the middle of page 7. Back to the OP's post, please?

[Peter Ebbesen]

nice argument, too bad it was entirely off topic. the passage I quoted of you clearly said that is doesn't violate the freedom of speech if you tell somebody who arrived at your home to not say a single word. you claimed it doesn't violate the freedom of speech when Shrapnel perma banned Sombre and others for speaking their minds, no matter how they said it. that was what you said and is what I corrected you on.

I have to admit that I failed to grasp what you intended with your last post as you jumped from my house example to universal rights to Venezuela/Cuba to nations in general to the question of democracy and freedom of speech and ended up with accusing me of hypocrisy for supporting Shrapnels' right to make deals with other people regarding the use of their forums, which you seem to consider for some reason to be a restriction of the freedom of speech.

Apparently your entire point was the last two or three lines coupled with the assumption somewhat along the lines of "freely entering into a deal with somebody else that requires you, as your part of the deal, not to speak about something specific is a violation of your right to the freedom of speech" but let's be fair here; Reading your previous post, how on earth was I to know that? :)



EDIT: Right, Ich. Deep breath. Thank you. :)

[chrispedersen]

I don't agree by the way that the concept of free speech is a universal concept. And a little bit of history backs this up. Even in our american colonies we had taxes on books; and we came from a style of government where you could be imprisoned for wht you said.

Thats one of the reasons the rights enshrined in the constitution were so radical.

I do think that we have made great progress in much of the world convincing people that free speech is a good thing. However, I would say that in the muslim concept, in their uma, there is no such belief.

For example, note the willingness to issue fatwahs against the cpenhagen cartoonists. Similiar efforts to restrict free speech are under assault at the UN under the guise of religious liberty.
Likewise the saying in china is the tallest tree gets cut down first. conformity is valued more highly than exceptionalism or free speech. Perhaps justifiably as they have a lot of people that have to live in proximity.

[Foodstamp]

I don't agree by the way that the concept of free speech is a universal concept. And a little bit of history backs this up. Even in our american colonies we had taxes on books; ...



And did you know eBay charges a 15% fee on the final sale price of a book! What kind of heartless corporate organization charges people more money because they want to read! Down with the British and down with eBay!

[Gandalf Parker]

:)
How geeky are we? Mixing virtual world with real world in everything?

OK how about this? In our VIRTUAL Community we VIRTUALLY have Free Speech?
(see the play on words? virtually as in "almost like but not really")

The organization of the Internet is much like a giant democracy made up of many small tyrannies.

[13lackGu4rd]

nice argument, too bad it was entirely off topic. the passage I quoted of you clearly said that is doesn't violate the freedom of speech if you tell somebody who arrived at your home to not say a single word. you claimed it doesn't violate the freedom of speech when Shrapnel perma banned Sombre and others for speaking their minds, no matter how they said it. that was what you said and is what I corrected you on.

I have to admit that I failed to grasp what you intended with your last post as you jumped from my house example to universal rights to Venezuela/Cuba to nations in general to the question of democracy and freedom of speech and ended up with accusing me of hypocrisy for supporting Shrapnels' right to make deals with other people regarding the use of their forums, which you seem to consider for some reason to be a restriction of the freedom of speech.

Apparently your entire point was the last two or three lines coupled with the assumption somewhat along the lines of "freely entering into a deal with somebody else that requires you, as your part of the deal, not to speak about something specific is a violation of your right to the freedom of speech" but let's be fair here; Reading your previous post, how on earth was I to know that? :)



EDIT: Right, Ich. Deep breath. Thank you. :)

seems like you still failed to understand my point. I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy for supporting Shrapnel's policy, but for turning the freedom off speech on and off whenever it suits your agenda. claiming it doesn't count in your home, on private forums over the internet or wherever else is why I made such a claim.

also, I didn't criticize any specific policy in my post, you wanted it to be like that because that's what you're fighting with all the Sombre supporters in here. however I have not presented any side, neither Sombre's supporters or yours and your followers. I merely asked that you don't hold double standards but be consistent...

nor did I speak neither for nor against the freedom of speech concept in general. I merely acknowledged that it's a concept we live by in our Western world. nor did I accuse Shrapnel or yourself of not acting according to the Western standards of the freedom of speech.

as for Shrapnel, as I clearly said in the post above, it was within their absolute right to act the way they did. whether it was also necessary or not is still debatable, and seeing all the antagonism this decision created I'd have to say in hind sight that it wasn't. as to all you people who say "Sombre was rude, irritating, bashing newbies, etc" I have to ask, where were you all this time? now that he's been banned you wake up and defend the decision, but we never heard from you all this time, whats up with that? seems like Shrapnel's decision was driven by these people who never spoke up before hands, only minor incidents in some minor threads. so now, in hind site and without all the information, as they're still hiding most of it I must say I can't support it. that's not to say it wasn't the right decision at the time, nor whether I would have acted differently or not if I was to make the decision and had all the information they had.

[Gandalf Parker]

I see your points. But I cant really say I agree with alot of that.

Surely a person can have different rules or attitudes about something in different places? I have different ideas of what should be allowable concerning nudity, cursing, drinking, smoking, brawling, noise, etc which varies for different places.

Is this just between you two? (referring to the "our western world")

As to the lack of comments, that might in itself be part of the problem. I have emails and PMs from people who felt they were being chased out. One recently chewed me out for "abandoning the forum" because when he was "ganged up on there was no gang to stand beside me". Another referred to the "elites". What you are saying is that you arent hearing much from the people still here. Possibly that is part of what is on the scale of measurement altho I suspect its yet another collection that is in the vaults of private communications..

[13lackGu4rd]

since when was the discussion about a set of rules for various things? you've also entirely missed the point Gandalf. it's about standards, or more precisely, double standards. not about rules...

and well, can you really blame me for not seeing PMs you receive(no idea why you but whatever) or PMs that somebody else receives? I'm saying that I couldn't find them speak up over the forums, where the public eye can see it... also I clearly said that I don't have access to all the information, PMs being among them, as well as the administrative forums, etc.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im sorry. I thought you associated the level of speech allowed here with that of your country.
Or inside someones house, with outside the house. You're right, must have gone by.

I have no idea why me either. Other than being in the threads that sparked the feeling of persecution I guess. For some reason I came across as the opposite of what they were complaining about. But I do remember seeing public complaints fairly often also.

[rdonj]

Hmm. I have to say, I have been on a lot of forums, and there is always a bit of an "old guard" situation, where certain forum members are very highly respected. These guys are pillars of the community. They've earned friends, rivals, and the respect and loathing of numerous others. The situation we have here is hardly any different. You have to expect this sort of thing in a forum, or indeed any community. Someone who has been around for a while is going to have friends who will stick up for them. Some random newbie who just wandered in, probably won't.

That said, this is also one of the most noob-friendly forums I've been on. I've seen posts that... well, let me just say, if I'd seen them on most other forums the person would immediately have been pulverized by the level of bashing. If a person was honestly chased away by this forum... I don't know that they can survive just about anywhere on the internet, sombre or not. I would invite these people to think back carefully. We do have a few members who have no problem being rude whenever they feel like it. But we also always have members that will come in and stick up for the new guy, or just calmly and politely answer their questions. I can't imagine it's really as bad as all that.

Then again, I've been on the internet since I was 8, so maybe I'm unreasonably inured to general crustiness.


By the way, someone earlier said that sombre doesn't play any MP games... that's not true. He does play MP, usually small games with mod nations, primarily dominated by the IRC crowd. Ever see the scruntlefut or spumbum games? Doesn't really matter, but I'm the sort that likes to point out these things :)

[Doo]

A bird flying free
Inspires the non-fliers
Life is never free

[13lackGu4rd]

was that supposed to be a Haiku? :o cause it isn't a proper Haiku if it was meant to be one ;)

[Gandalf Parker]

Yeah impressions are misleading. I keep hearing that I dont irc, or mp, or mod. :)

[rdonj]

To be fair gandalf, the impression that you don't MP might come from yourself, as you have said more than once that you are much more of an SP player than mp ;)

[Digress]

To be fair gandalf, the impression that you don't MP might come from yourself, as you have said more than once that you are much more of an SP player than mp ;)

You forget that Gandalf uses a secret identity when in MP ..... at least when he signs up ;)

[Gandalf Parker]

Nahhh thats only where I have a known presence not really conducive to combat. Like a moderator or adminstrator slot.
Otherwise I never had to worry about that.

You might be amazed to find out all the people you have played and didnt know it.

[rdonj]

To be fair gandalf, the impression that you don't MP might come from yourself, as you have said more than once that you are much more of an SP player than mp ;)

You forget that Gandalf uses a secret identity when in MP ..... at least when he signs up ;)

Shh, you shouldn't say things like that. Didn't you know that having multiple accounts is against the forum rules (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/misc.php?do=cfrules)? (see article 10)

[Gandalf Parker]

He didnt say this forum. Or even Dom3. I even treat my MUD that way and thats since the birth of the net.

[rdonj]

True, true.

[SlipperyJim]

Apropos of nothing in particular ... I'm bummed that two of my favorite Dom3 modders have left these forums. I don't post much, but I do lurk, and I've been checking back for new versions of Sombre's and Burnsaber's mods. I have a lovely SP game going right now with the Ogre Kingdoms....

I'm not taking sides, because I have no idea what all of the fuss was. I'm just bummed. :(

[Lingchih]

The members you seek can now be found here:

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?

[SlipperyJim]

Thanks for the link. I've already looked in on the new modding forums. A bit ... rougher ... than the Shrapnel forums, but I expected that.

I also read the various locked threads about the whole incident. Now I have an opinion, and I have decided which "side" I believe to be right. The issue appears to be a "done deal" now, so I won't try to re-open it. I'll just say that the only reason to keep playing a game as old as Dom3 is the user community, which just took a hit that it didn't need to take and might not survive....