OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Tim Brooks

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[Kheldron]

Originally Posted by Baalz

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.

[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.

[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.