mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
Necro-moderation, going back through old threads and posts and then taking action, is a bad idea for many reasons and through many examples in other forums as well as back in the distant past here has only caused more problems than it has solved.
Out of interest, what's the criteria for a thread/post to be "old" and beyond action?
quote:
There's a lot more in terms of moderation actions than what you've seen. Many PMs, e-mails, warnings on other forums, etc. In terms of this forum, requests for moderation are the best way to make sure we see something. The last two such resulted in two moderation actions. Both of those ended up causing a lot of community shock, which is why we're here discussing.
Happy to concede that there's much unseen, but there's no denying there's been a problem here for a while, and the criteria on what is going to be actioned and what isn't currently feels appears quite arbitrary.
quote:
There has been some moderation, but it has been light and it was mainly on the shoulders of one volunteer community moderator who shouldn't have had all that as his responsibility. I take your point and take personal responsibility for that. However, that's changing and I've been trying to explain that.
Your candour is appreciated.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
Thanks, Erik.
I follow your logic and support the approach.
Alfred, in all my interactions, was both precise and polite, though there were plenty of instances where he wasn't to others--polite that is--he was always precise. I have little doubt as to why this occurs. There are certain people that you don't challenge. My father was that type: a surgeon who had to be supremely confident and competent every day of his adult life. My first company commander was a similar personality: wicked smart with a sharp tongue. If you want to get along with this type of person, and they are absolutely worth the effort, you don't challenge them. Instead, you talk less (or write less), ask good questions and listen (or read). We have a lot of this type on this forum. I could name ten without thinking very hard. My philosophy is to argue less and read more. I don't always agree with them, but that doesn't matter. The breadth and depth of their knowledge is astounding. As for Alfred, I hope he will rejoin the forums. If not, I understand. I have all the guides he sent me over the past ten years and I prefer to remember him that way.
This is an interest comment, and certainly offers a different perspective than what we've previously seen.
A few comments on this.
The absence of politeness does not equate to the presence of rudeness. The best term I've heard for Alfred's explanations is that they were clinical. That's still not rudeness.
Consider, for example, certain perspectives towards the American habit of asking "How are you?" in an everyday setting (e.g a member of staff at shop to a customer at the checkout). For the majority of the Anglosphere, this is a polite conversational tool to facilitate small talk.
An interpretation from another perspective may be that this is actually an intrusive (or, perhaps, rude) question, coming from a stranger with no genuine interest in what your current emotions are.
I'd repeat the same point with regard to sharp language. Being critical does not equate to rudeness.
This, I feel, is a key point that has been exceptionally overlooked.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yaab
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yaab
The question remains who owns Alfred posts, especially his long detailed guides?
I bet you're fun at funerals.
You and Erik Rutins seem to be the most articulate posters here, but you are strangely evasive about this issue. I don't know how it works under USA or English law, but some of Alfred's posts, especially his guides, could be argued to be copyrighted material under the Polish law. Matrix Games have been strict about posting copyrighted material ( Chemkid). I just want to know who legally owns our posts here once we are deplatformed.
To be candid, I'm not evasive, I'm downright ignorant as to the legal aspects involved. Nor am I going to pretend to any knowledge of the topic. All I will say is you should seek professional legal advice than trying to crowdsource it online.
I made the above comment as a sarcastic remark as the possessory tone is discordant with the wider discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edmon
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
In all the walks of life, those who are exceptional tend not to suffer fools, and because they are exceptional, most of the rest of us appear as fools, particularly the beginner.
I honestly disagree with this statement, in that I have worked with some very exceptional people and frankly, sometimes poor behaviour is tolerated because of some feeling that the "trade off is worth it". But it never is, because drags down the whole team, it puts people off joining the team and such behaviour only ever seems to get worse over time. It's also not right to look down on people just because they seemingly don't know something that is obvious to you.
The key issue behind Alfred's perceived rudeness is the inability to separate being critical of the idea and being critical of the person.
quote:
When I was a Senior Engineer, the staff used to joke that I was "a Wizard" that somehow knew magic. But I used to say, everything is easy when you know how to do it. We had plenty of talented staff who couldn't open a picture file, use winZIP, or write an email (back when these things were new to many). But if you wanted to know what the exact planning laws were that'd allow you to put a radio tower in a field, what the height needed to be and the complex math that allows you to link sites with Microwave dishes over huge distances and align them perfectly... they knew exactly how it could be done and they made it look easy.
I'll warrant that within that role, when you made a proposal or a suggestion that had flaws or issues inherent in it, those were pointed out, and critique provided where they were felt deserved.
I'll also raise this and suggest that this was never taken as a personal slight, nor the comments or critiques reflected on you in a personal capacity.
quote:
I was at one point considered by many people to be one of the worlds best, if not the best BattleTech player. Many of my discoveries totally changed the meta of the game, forever. I spent most of my time writing tutorials, explaining my testing methods, practice methods, etc. Guides that are still on the BT reddit even now. Being the best and "not suffering fools" are two entirely separately things and the latter is absolutely a choice, if you ask me.
That does make me wonder if you'd have retained this equanimity in the face of a consistent and prolonged campaign of dissent from elements of the BT community, dismissing your time spent on researching and developing your guides, and publicly seeking to diminish your work.
That's what happened to Alfred. The threads are all there.
quote:
Just to be clear, I don't think he accepts any responsibility, but there was no requirement of that for the ban to end. The only requirement was to agree to follow the forum rules going forward. Skipping that would be making an exception in this case.
From memory, your public statement was to the effect that Alfred's ban was for a week, and that he'd be welcomed back, a fresh start etc. From reading between the lines, this was either:
- inaccurate, or
- additional conditions were imposed.
I ask as I had that sense from your original post, which certainly gave me that impression.
quote:
With that said, you may be right about cutting the Gordian knot in this case. We've given a lot of other folks a second chance in this turning of the page, why not Alfred? If he did come back and continued as before, he'd shortly earn another ban, but at least he'd have a chance to benefit from the extra information about the return of moderation to the forum, as others have.
This, fundamentally, has been the issue driving my above comments regarding equity in implanting the moderation policy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I agree that those who seek to give of their knowledge and experience and help others generally lift up a team more and also often achieve more success over time. However, even for those who often fall short of that, or to whom it comes less naturally, the effort in trying to be helpful to others is worth the rewards. In my experience, the more generous you are in your dealings with others, the more you will receive in return both in terms of benefits for your own character and the kind reciprocal actions of others who appreciate your help.
Regards,
- Erik
I'd refer you to my above comments directed at Edmon more generally, but the bolded in particular.
I don't have access to your PM's, so this information is coming from my time spent on the forum and what's been said publicly.
Alfred's responses were always reciprocal. For an illustration, contrast Tanaka and DesertWolf101 and their respective approaches, mindsets and feedback.
I'll hazard out a few hypothesis:
1) Posters with a high sense of reciprocity (in terms of having a considered, thoughtful and open-minded interaction) will have a positive recollection of directly interacting with Alfred.
2) Posters with a low sense of reciprocity (in terms of not possessing the above) will have a negative recollection of directly interacting with Alfred.
3) There will be an relationship between 1) and 2) and the feedback you have received via PM.
The final point is that Alfred's generosity is evident all over the forum. I think there's certainly a case to be made that the forum, as a whole, has been far from reciprocal in return.
< Message edited by mind_messing -- 1/19/2022 5:52:29 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: A discussion about the Banning of Alfred - 
. 
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