OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[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]

Originally Posted by Sicaire

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]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

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.

Originally Posted by llamabeast

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]

Originally Posted by rdonj

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]

Originally Posted by Lingchih

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.