OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

...
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.

[lch]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

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.

[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.

[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.