A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26288
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too
I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 13465
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed? Remind your daughters of that . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41373
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too
I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.
warspite1

Hi witpqs

Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......


As a wise man once asked:

War - What is it good for?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41373
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?
warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.
As a wise man once asked:

War - What is it good for?
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 13465
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?
warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41373
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?
warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .
warspite1

The Guildford Four - a famous mis-carriage of justice case in the UK.

Alfred being banned without a warning having been given, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to come back.

It's not that deep.

Perspective.
As a wise man once asked:

War - What is it good for?
DD696
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by DD696 »

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 18386
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: DD696

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....
Do you have a suggestion to improve the discourse? Bearing in mind that everyone is coming from a place of differing experiences and might not relate to yours?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 13465
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .
warspite1

The Guildford Four - a famous mis-carriage of justice case in the UK.

Alfred being banned without a warning having been given, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to come back.

It's not that deep.

Perspective.

Maybe famous in the UK but where else?

Pram - a baby carriage, stroller . . .

Now you are calling Alfred a child. Did you receive a warning for this yet?
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

rmeckman
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:57 pm

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by rmeckman »

Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......

Every person on the forum had to agree to the forum rules when they created their Matrix account. If you disagree with the rules at that point, you don't get an account. (In effect you are banned before you even start.) My understanding is that temporarily banned members can come back once they reaffirm they will follow the same rules they agreed to when their account was provided. If they refuse, they are in basically the same situation as a person who disagrees with the rules while trying to set up a new Matrix account.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Kind of amusing to have Alfred accused of rudeness by personal attacks towards him...which is by the way against forum rules...[:'(]
warspite1

Well I said I wouldn’t comment further. The problem with that sort of announcement is that then one or more people may post something that can’t be ignored….

You don't reference any specific posts and so assume you are including all posts that relate to Alfred.

Mind_Messing posted (post 5) a response to Erik’s original post to say that he totally disagreed with Matrix actions regarding the week long ban on Alfred and went into reasons why – effectively Matrix are wrong, they’ve mis-represented the situation and mis-applied their own moderation policy (acknowledged re the lack of warning by Erik), they’ve wrongly refused to allow him back after a week (despite Erik explaining exactly why) and Alfred, whose actions have always been beyond reproach (according to M_M) was the victim here. Apparently, according to him, Alfred wasn't rude it was always all the other guys fault, and besides rudeness is a 'social construct' so there [8|].

That totally one-sided response should not be allowed to go unanswered. Subsequent posts have disagreed with M_M’s rosy view of Alfred's behaviour and naturally give reasons why. My responses have not been designed as personal attacks, but are posts to counter M_M’s opinion. In providing an alternate opinion, Alfred’s failings are necessarily aired. Are you suggesting in your comment above that only M_M has the right to give his rosy view on this and that no one who disagrees may provide an alternate opinion? I don’t believe that of you, and that makes your post disappointing.

I am not trawling through the forum to get specific incidences as ‘proof’ as M_M unhelpfully suggests. All long time members of the forum know, and look at the names and length of time on the forum some of these individuals have. What, are all these comments made up?? The number of people that have come forward says much, as does Matrix making the decision to place a temporary ban on him for one such incident. And not before time.

Erik has said it is up to Alfred as to whether he returns to the forum. It is not as though he is being kept away against his will.


For quite some time I was annoyed by the banned one and the one that is in bed with the banned one. At some point I just decided to A) ignore the banned one and all his rudeness and lack of prove that he has even played a single turn or even owns the game and B) used the green button on the one that is in bed with the banned one (the only one I ever used it on)

And you know what? It just works perfectly! Believe me, it's not worth it because the BS is a never ending story, as can be seen in this thread which seems to have degraded in some discussion about a banned forum member that shall not be named.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by Zovs »

Yes, I was banned for a week many years ago for basically being a jerk and not following the rules, I had to agree to the rules to come back which I did, but unfortunately I was an idiot at that time and got a month off to think things over. I realized that I’d rather just confirm to the rules and keep my access to the community then die with my stupid pride and be isolated. I have had no issues since I changed my ways.

You have to really want to be permanently banned to stay in that status, it’s really a personal choice. Erik missed a step, we are all infallible and we all make mistakes and Erik offered the same to Alfred that all temp banning get.

End of story.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26288
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too
I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.
warspite1

Hi witpqs

Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......
Exactly. I do believe Erik implied it's up to Alfred.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 13465
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Kind of amusing to have Alfred accused of rudeness by personal attacks towards him...which is by the way against forum rules...[:'(]
warspite1

Well I said I wouldn’t comment further. The problem with that sort of announcement is that then one or more people may post something that can’t be ignored….

You don't reference any specific posts and so assume you are including all posts that relate to Alfred.

Mind_Messing posted (post 5) a response to Erik’s original post to say that he totally disagreed with Matrix actions regarding the week long ban on Alfred and went into reasons why – effectively Matrix are wrong, they’ve mis-represented the situation and mis-applied their own moderation policy (acknowledged re the lack of warning by Erik), they’ve wrongly refused to allow him back after a week (despite Erik explaining exactly why) and Alfred, whose actions have always been beyond reproach (according to M_M) was the victim here. Apparently, according to him, Alfred wasn't rude it was always all the other guys fault, and besides rudeness is a 'social construct' so there [8|].

That totally one-sided response should not be allowed to go unanswered. Subsequent posts have disagreed with M_M’s rosy view of Alfred's behaviour and naturally give reasons why. My responses have not been designed as personal attacks, but are posts to counter M_M’s opinion. In providing an alternate opinion, Alfred’s failings are necessarily aired. Are you suggesting in your comment above that only M_M has the right to give his rosy view on this and that no one who disagrees may provide an alternate opinion? I don’t believe that of you, and that makes your post disappointing.

I am not trawling through the forum to get specific incidences as ‘proof’ as M_M unhelpfully suggests. All long time members of the forum know, and look at the names and length of time on the forum some of these individuals have. What, are all these comments made up?? The number of people that have come forward says much, as does Matrix making the decision to place a temporary ban on him for one such incident. And not before time.

Erik has said it is up to Alfred as to whether he returns to the forum. It is not as though he is being kept away against his will.


For quite some time I was annoyed by the banned one and the one that is in bed with the banned one. At some point I just decided to A) ignore the banned one and all his rudeness and lack of prove that he has even played a single turn or even owns the game and B) used the green button on the one that is in bed with the banned one (the only one I ever used it on)

And you know what? It just works perfectly! Believe me, it's not worth it because the BS is a never ending story, as can be seen in this thread which seems to have degraded in some discussion about a banned forum member that shall not be named.

So now you are implying that Alfred whom I presume is the banned one and someone else here is in bed with him with all that entails. Oh well . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 4495
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Kind of amusing to have Alfred accused of rudeness by personal attacks towards him...which is by the way against forum rules...[:'(]
warspite1

Well I said I wouldn’t comment further. The problem with that sort of announcement is that then one or more people may post something that can’t be ignored….

You don't reference any specific posts and so assume you are including all posts that relate to Alfred.

Mind_Messing posted (post 5) a response to Erik’s original post to say that he totally disagreed with Matrix actions regarding the week long ban on Alfred and went into reasons why – effectively Matrix are wrong, they’ve mis-represented the situation and mis-applied their own moderation policy (acknowledged re the lack of warning by Erik), they’ve wrongly refused to allow him back after a week (despite Erik explaining exactly why) and Alfred, whose actions have always been beyond reproach (according to M_M) was the victim here. Apparently, according to him, Alfred wasn't rude it was always all the other guys fault, and besides rudeness is a 'social construct' so there [8|].

That totally one-sided response should not be allowed to go unanswered. Subsequent posts have disagreed with M_M’s rosy view of Alfred's behaviour and naturally give reasons why. My responses have not been designed as personal attacks, but are posts to counter M_M’s opinion. In providing an alternate opinion, Alfred’s failings are necessarily aired. Are you suggesting in your comment above that only M_M has the right to give his rosy view on this and that no one who disagrees may provide an alternate opinion? I don’t believe that of you, and that makes your post disappointing.

I am not trawling through the forum to get specific incidences as ‘proof’ as M_M unhelpfully suggests. All long time members of the forum know, and look at the names and length of time on the forum some of these individuals have. What, are all these comments made up?? The number of people that have come forward says much, as does Matrix making the decision to place a temporary ban on him for one such incident. And not before time.

Erik has said it is up to Alfred as to whether he returns to the forum. It is not as though he is being kept away against his will.


THIS. EXACTLY. So one side is allowed to discuss the issue but the other is not allowed because it is a personal attack?

I've wanted nothing more than to stop talking about all of this mess, stop fighting about all of this mess, move on from all of this mess and just get back to talking about the game which is all I ever wanted to do in the first place. But then Mind-Messing goes after Erik Rutkins and Matrix again and again and won't let it go. Sorry could not stand by and just let that happen as if it was all just one sided and unanswered either. If I get a month long ban for discussing this again then so be it.

But at this point I'm done wasting my time talking about this anymore because I'm so sick of it. You can keep arguing with the CEO of Matrix if you want but this is all of the evidence I need regarding the issue that was closed a long time ago. It's time to move on.
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Alfred,

Your initial reply was in fact rude. Mark did respond with an ad hominem, which made things worse, but instead of trying to find a way to make peace you then followed up with a series of ad hominem rant posts, the result of which was in fact to drive an old wargamer who was just about to get into WITP-AE completely away from the game and the forum. This thread was reported for moderation and our goal in this forum is to be a friendly and civil community that encourages new players and does not drive them away.

As he who cast the first stone here and followed it up with a bucket of rocks, you've got a one week vacation from the forum to think over how to follow the forum rules. Be civil and aim for de-escalation rather than the other way around.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So we can't post links to a good YT series we think others might enjoy or get something out of now? Yes I think Lodrik offers some good Japanese game play. Better than any other YouTubers I have seen. Those guys are not newbies to the game but they don't know everything. Not that they were the Gods of WITPAE. But they still offer a lot of good tips and observations. We all do. We all get things wrong about this game. That's why we all love it.

The issue was not posting links to YT series that others might enjoy. If it had been framed as such

The issue was that you posted links to YT series with the thread title "Great Japanese Primer Highly Recommend. This guy knows his stuff".

Alfred, joined by other long-term members of the forum, pointed out the issues and implications of doing this.

From a superficial examination, neither of those videos positions itself as a primer. That seems to have been you addition. To your credit, you have since edited that post and title to make it less hagiographic.

I took a look for this thread, which I found here:

fb.asp?m=5075665

Here's Alfred's reply to someone enthusiastically sharing some videos about WITP-AE. I have bolded a few key passages:

"Every time I click on a youtube AE channel which is presented to the forum as being the product of someone who really knows their stuff, without failure I find them to be riddled with significant errors. These two links have fully complied with the usual"quality". That was 170 minutes of misinformation. It explains why all the newbie who refuse to read the official documentation, which is accurate, then come to the forum and display just how little they kin ow about the game.

It was President Lincoln who said:

You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

That was said in the pre-Youtube era for nowadays with anyone able to upload Youtube videos, it is in fact possible to fool all the people all the time. The AE videos are proof of the new paradigm.


Alfred"

As a player trying to learn the game, that reply basically tells you the following:

1. You have shared misinformation
2. You have shown you are ignorant
3. You are a gullible fool

Now, the videos may have been misinformation, but if someone is not already an experienced WITP-AE player, they're not going to know that and it's far from civil to therefore state that they are showing ignorance and foolishness. If you don't want video creators covering WITP-AE, this is also a good way to achieve that.

Alternately, a reply like this would have been civil, helpful and within the forum rules:

"Every time I click on a youtube AE channel which is presented to the forum as being the product of someone who really knows their stuff, without failure I find them to be riddled with significant errors. Unfortunately, these also matched that description.

I would suggest that you instead read these guides, threads, AARs, etc. as well as the manual if you want to really learn how to play the Japanese side well. You may want to share these with the video creator as well, as it may help improve his grasp of the game:

<helpful links>

Alfred"

Regards,

- Erik
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
The optics on this are, to be candid, very bad.

See Trugrit's now closed thread for a sense of how at least some element of the community has reacted to this.Given the light touch nature of forum moderation to date, I would have expected more than a superficial attempt to assess the situation before handing out bans. Sadly, that seems not to be the case.

I've actually spent hours assessing the situation and reading many, many threads, but I'm sure that there is more that I don't know given that I haven't been regularly active in this sub-forum.

Trugrit's perceptions in that thread are frankly not based on any facts that I recognize, but as far as I can tell on worst case assumptions based on some comments Mark made. Those are out of my control - I can only do what I did and clarify that Alfred's ban was not because of some "special" status Mark has, but because of how Alfred behaved.

I think it's important to note that I did warn Mark as well as others that replying to rudeness with more rudeness is only going to lead to escalation. I don't agree with the attacks back at Alfred, but I also made clear that in our moderation, we consistently look to see who cast the first stone. Going through multiple threads over past months, that is Alfred, time and time again.

As far as my expectations when Alfred returns from his ban - yes, I expect everyone look at it as if Alfred has a clean slate. I expect bygones to be bygones and I'll extend everyone the benefit of the doubt, but if the forum rules continue to be regarded as inconvenient and irrelevant, more action will follow.

quote:

Moderation standards being off the mark is one issue. Inconsistent application of said standards is a order of magnitude worse in my opinion.



That would be true if they have been applied inconsistently. Per our standards, where he who starts it is the one who gets punished and the policy is to remind others to remain civil rather than responding in kind, they've been applied consistently.

Regards,

- Erik
[/quote]
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
With, with all candour, seems to be a stretch. The norm (both in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be for a warning first. c.f IanR in the previous thread.

Yet this was not the approach adopted in Alfred's case.



That's correct and I'll explain our normal process and why we sometimes deviate from it.

The normal process is that we issue a warning. If the warning is ignored, then a one week ban. If the forum user still ignores the rules, then a one month ban, if further infractions then a permanent ban.

We always reserve the right to skip steps if the infraction is severe enough. In addition, if the poster has a past history of breaking the forum rules which comes to light too late to take action on, it will still influence the first action taken and likely result in a more severe one being chosen.

Alfred's epic rant was both enough within that thread and in addition he had a history of previous lack of civility that I felt it justified going right to a one week ban. I was hoping this would also give time for both him and Mark and anyone else caught in the crossfire to cool off a bit (that didn't work out as hoped).

quote:

See above point about inconsistent application of the standards. Here's a case in point from the top thread on the War Room currently - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

For reference, first time I'm seeing that thread, but RJ previously posted one of those in the General Discussion forum and I have warned him not to repeat that as "swastika trolling" is a form of trolling and that's against the forum rules. Doesn't matter if it's actually the Nazi symbol or the many older versions of the swastika going back in history before the Nazis ruined it, it's still designed to provoke a response.

Regarding the responses to Alfred there, his first reply was moderate compared to others I've seen, but yeah he did talk down to the poster and it was not really a friendly reply, but a condescending one. The reason our rules call for civility is to avoid this type of situation.

In my experience, because there is a lack of face or voice communication, on the internet you have to try extra hard to be polite and civil if you want to make sure people will not misunderstand you or potentially take offense. If you go the opposite direction and are much less polite than you'd be in person, it will not end well.


quote:

Two comments to this:

- What one permits, one promotes.

- Looking for the primum movens over a period of months will lead to a distorted picture. This is a long running issue, going back years.



I looked back months and saw a consistent pattern. If you have the origin of all this and can share it with me and it shows something else, I'll certainly take that into account.

We ask all posters to be civil, but when I see someone responding poorly to a direct attack, I'm not going to hit them with the ban hammer. I'll hit the attacker and remind the attacked to keep cool and not stoop to the same level. That's also different from someone who takes offense far too easily and imagines attacks in normal posts, in effect creating problems where there are none. That type of behavior can also in effect be a lack of civility.

quote:

To be candid, that is extremely unlikely to occur, for two reasons:

- The can of worms has been opened and views on the matter are being expressed. See for example comments from HansBolter, IanR, Alpha77 and others.

- Adopting a more authoritative position in moderation without addressing the previous issues will not resolve the underlying issues. Expecting a clean slate and a return to normality afterwards is naïve.



Well, it's either going to happen or it won't and if folks are not willing to be civil, then to be frank there will be more bans. We've had some issues in the distant past in the WITP-AE community as well and I recall multiple bans ending up being required to restore tranquility to the community. I don't want to go there, but I will if what are fair and reasonable forum rules can't be followed.

If there are unaddressed underlying issues, you have my PM and e-mail to present the evidence of that and I will read through it.

quote:

In light of the above, where one is defining the starting point de facto determines he who is guilty.

Change the starting line and the guilty party changes.



That's hypothetically possible, but I've yet to see the proof of that in this case.

quote:

This is worth reflecting on in Alfred's context. Alfred criticism in the previous thread was certainly directed at the behaviour rather than the person.



Alfred's criticism has gotten personal quite often, including in that thread and others I've read.

quote:

To refer back to my above comments, the can of worms is open. Best dispose of it in public.

You've already made it explicit that there's divided opinion on this matter via PM's, as can also be seen from posts elsewhere.

This has been quite a public dispute, anything other than a public resolution will simply let the problem persist.



I disagree that further public disputes on this subject are helpful, but I welcome those who have more to say to express it directly to me via PM or e-mail.

Regards,

- Erik
[/quote]
Image
DD696
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by DD696 »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: DD696

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....
Do you have a suggestion to improve the discourse? Bearing in mind that everyone is coming from a place of differing experiences and might not relate to yours?

Why, yes, I do. Thank you for asking. To answer:

This thread Eric started regarding a discussion of out Community and Moderation has deteriorated into a discussion of either 1) Alfred is a god, therefore infallible and not subject to reprimand for any action he has taken, or 2) Alfred knew the in's and out's of the game but he is intolerably rude.

My opinion falls into the number 2 category. In fact, his knowledge of the game certainly implied to me over the years that he had access to the code. He was not on the development team, and yet he apparently knew how the code worked explicitly. How did he get this knowledge? Certainly not from information available to any user of the game. So where? I wonder how he got that access.

Now, I would rather that a discussion be held on the events of the Friday massacre and what provoked a hired gun from Slitherine to jump in and start locking threads, outright deleting others that attempted to question these actions, and to generate more disruption to this forum than I have ever seen, and I have been around since the beginnings of Matrix Games, but did not register to participate on the forums until about August of 2004. I don't post a lot, but when I do I have something to say rather than building up a post count.

I was looking through my collection of WWII era photos this afternoon wondering just how many of them would be allowed under the new Gin House Blues rules, or whatever excuse they are using. I wondered if this is simply their war against women. Any picture of a woman, no matter how chaste the appearance may be, can be deleted. Weapons of war and violence, pictures of the carnage, rampage, death and destruction are allowed. I wondered if pictures of my great grand mothers would be allowed, and concluded that they would not. A graduation picture of my daughter would be disallowed.

I wondered when standing in line at the grocery store, that since the woman facing away from me was showing her backside to me, would Slitherine consider that as her "presenting" herself. Looking thru the photos I wondered if the same standards applied to men as well. Should a picture of Marines wading ashore at Tarawa be banned because their backsides are shown by the camera. Does Slitherine consider them to be sexualized because of the angle of the camera. I wondered about the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. I wondered that if they had been women would the picture be banned because no one is showing a frontal view?

If Slitherine is fair that both sexes should be treated equally. If pictures of women are banned, then so should be pictures of men.

Why is every picture of a woman sexualized and yet the same standard does not apply to a picture of Patton, Rommel, Eisenhower or Tojo. I looked at a photo of Theodore Roosevelt Jr's grave and it is marked by a cross. Is this picture allowed?

Yeah, there is much more to discuss than whether on not Alfred is a god.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41373
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: DD696

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: DD696

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....
Do you have a suggestion to improve the discourse? Bearing in mind that everyone is coming from a place of differing experiences and might not relate to yours?

Why, yes, I do. Thank you for asking. To answer:

This thread Eric started regarding a discussion of out Community and Moderation has deteriorated into a discussion of either 1) Alfred is a god, therefore infallible and not subject to reprimand for any action he has taken, or 2) Alfred knew the in's and out's of the game but he is intolerably rude.

My opinion falls into the number 2 category. In fact, his knowledge of the game certainly implied to me over the years that he had access to the code. He was not on the development team, and yet he apparently knew how the code worked explicitly. How did he get this knowledge? Certainly not from information available to any user of the game. So where? I wonder how he got that access.

Now, I would rather that a discussion be held on the events of the Friday massacre and what provoked a hired gun from Slitherine to jump in and start locking threads, outright deleting others that attempted to question these actions, and to generate more disruption to this forum than I have ever seen, and I have been around since the beginnings of Matrix Games, but did not register to participate on the forums until about August of 2004. I don't post a lot, but when I do I have something to say rather than building up a post count.

I was looking through my collection of WWII era photos this afternoon wondering just how many of them would be allowed under the new Gin House Blues rules, or whatever excuse they are using. I wondered if this is simply their war against women. Any picture of a woman, no matter how chaste the appearance may be, can be deleted. Weapons of war and violence, pictures of the carnage, rampage, death and destruction are allowed. I wondered if pictures of my great grand mothers would be allowed, and concluded that they would not. A graduation picture of my daughter would be disallowed.

I wondered when standing in line at the grocery store, that since the woman facing away from me was showing her backside to me, would Slitherine consider that as her "presenting" herself. Looking thru the photos I wondered if the same standards applied to men as well. Should a picture of Marines wading ashore at Tarawa be banned because their backsides are shown by the camera. Does Slitherine consider them to be sexualized because of the angle of the camera. I wondered about the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. I wondered that if they had been women would the picture be banned because no one is showing a frontal view?

If Slitherine is fair that both sexes should be treated equally. If pictures of women are banned, then so should be pictures of men.

Why is every picture of a woman sexualized and yet the same standard does not apply to a picture of Patton, Rommel, Eisenhower or Tojo. I looked at a photo of Theodore Roosevelt Jr's grave and it is marked by a cross. Is this picture allowed?

Yeah, there is much more to discuss than whether on not Alfred is a god.
warspite1

Well I may be wrong, but I take from the above that you want to discuss Matrix policy and the Derby House Principles (DHP)? Well if so then there is little point. It's Matrix forum, it's their rules and they have decided to adopt them. You, like all of us, have a choice. Agree to abide by the forum rules or not. Entirely your choice.

Me I've made my choice, while I don't agree with everything, I think the DHP is a well intentioned, well meaning development by Matrix and I'll stick around.



As a wise man once asked:

War - What is it good for?
User avatar
durnedwolf
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 5:05 am
Location: USA

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by durnedwolf »

Hi Erik,

Wow. After reading through six pages of this I'm pretty sure I could print it out and grow a most excellent garden. I appreciate what you and the moderators are trying to do. From the outside looking in it looks a lot like herding cats. I wish you the best of luck.

I really-really like this game. I'm really-really glad there is an effort to do some minor cleanup and get us off of "beta" and on to a last "official" mod.

I have found a lot of kind members within this forum that have aided me quite extensively in my pursuit of playing this game with some degree of competence. And many of our fellow forumites are posting very nice AARs that are a pleasure to follow. I wish to thank all of you that have contributed to making this a fun place for me to visit.

There have also been members less kind-hearted. They have given me the opportunity to practice forgiveness. And if I've had to practice too hard on my ability to forgive, I've found this excellent little green button at the bottom of a post. Humbly I would suggest (very-very humbly) that the green button is our friend. to my good fellows, I say let no fellow gamer get your goat. I've hidden my goat. You might consider the same.

I fully grant you the right to disagree with me. It's okay - you won't hurt my feelings. [:)]

And finally, to all, I wish you a most joyous new year and I wish you good cheer.


DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer
DD696
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by DD696 »

So, what is the policy?

Can a picture of a female Colonel in the United States Marine Corps be considered acceptable to post?

Is a photo of hundreds of US Marines lying on the beach at Iwo Jima be posted? Or are then considered to be "presenting and posing"?

Is the photo of US Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima still an acceptable photo to Slitherine, or is it unacceptable because because the Marines are shown from their sides or back? If it is, then why is it, when females in the same view would be banned?

How about the famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman in times square at the end of the war? The woman has her back to the camera, so is she simply presenting and posing?

How about the famous photo of a crying man when the Germans marched thru Paris? He had two women to his right and one to his left. Is he banned because women are in the photo as well?

How about a picture of the daughter of wife of Admiral English at the launching ceremony of DD696, the USS English. Since these photos are taken from behind, are they to be banned because of that camera angle, or simply banned because a woman was present?

How about a picture of two old women walking thru the rubble of a bombed out German city, holding hands to help each other keep their balance?

How about a picture of my father in his Navy dress uniform?

Huh???
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
Dali101
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:55 am

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

Post by Dali101 »

AD Desert Wolf.

You're lucky Alfred was kind to you.
I wasn't so lucky.
Dali
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”