mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
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.
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.
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.asp?m=5056345&mpage=1&key=
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
This brings to mind a very good Communications Seminar I was lucky enough to have been at. One of the primary rules: criticize the behaviour, never attack the person.
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.
quote:
As for Alfred, his downfall was his lack of restraint. I have had several productive and civil conversations with him over the years. I like him. Whatever possessed him that day to throw dirt clods, followed by rocks, followed by buckets of bricks delineated a natural result.
It's almost as if the principle of reciprocity applies...
quote:
Had I the ban hammer, even with my history of restraint, I can't say I wouldn't have been left with a different choice.
One would have hoped that you'd have been consistent by issuing a warning first...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I'd like to ask anyone who has any further disagreement with our forum rules or moderation decisions to please PM me or e-mail me at erikr@matrixgames.com. If it would help, PM me a phone number and I'll give you a call and we can talk.
I don't think it's helping to continue to do this through public posts at this point. If you have a beef, let's talk it through.
Regards,
- Erik
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.
< Message edited by mind_messing -- 11/16/2021 11:30:59 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Thinking about WITP-AE ... questions? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread