Dear Buck, Since you asked

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 5:43 pm

Dear Buck, Since you asked (Spam on topic)

Originally posted by Buck Satan
Somehow I feel as though I'm being thought of as the enemy, so I think it's time to explain myself. Gruntboy received a serious warning from me a couple of months ago after which he promised not to lose his temper again. Additionally, I was told earlier this weekend that if I allowed members such as Gruntboy to continue slinging insults that certain members would leave the forum. Either way, the forum loses.

Gruntboy received a warning, and blatantly went far beyond breaking the rules by posting profanity and purposely avoiding the filter to do so. I know many of you have emailed/PMed me to say that this type of behavior has happened in the past without someone being banned, but please keep in mind that I don't read 99% of what gets posted here in the forums. Not because I don't want to, but because my time is extremely limited. I have a fulltime job (aside from GB), I'm finishing the basement in my house, I have a dog and girlfriend that need attention, and I have an entire network of RPGs to maintain (as well as up and coming projects) - all of which I do pretty much by myself. Therefore, I can only address what gets complained about, and this incident caused many emails to flood my inbox.

Although some of you may feel that I'm being unfair, I can only address what's brought to my attention. If other people are breaking the rules that I don't know about, please let me know. I don't enjoy banning anyone, especially someone who has helped moderate these forums for the last year or two.

So, what is the answer to future issues like this? Should I keep my nose out of the forums completely, and leave the reprimanding to the moderators? Should a person receive numerous warnings before they're banned? Should we let things slide completely and allow insults and profanity to be posted?

Speak your mind! Let me know what you'd like to me to do in order to avoid conflict yet give members the freedom to say what they want.

I wanted to respect Enchantress's wishes for Grunty's thread to be a tribute to him not a place to hash out the issues, but since Buck has asked these questions, I thought this would be a place where we could answer. Hopefully, he will have time to read it.

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 5:46 pm

Although I am a new member with few posts and what I say probably means very little, I think that Buck did the right thing, and I think that he handles the boards very well.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:09 pm

Good idea Scayde...

One of the things I like about Game Banshee is the level of respect with which people generally treat one another... Like many others..... I was shocked by the posts Grunt made a few months ago.. and I was shocked by the more recent events...
I would not argue that Grunt blatantly broke the Forum rules...

However.... I feel that members should be treated equally... and this does not always happen. While it is true that direct flames employing profanities are flagrantly intended to hurt, to upset.... or to lash out... are they really any different to an artfully-worded, subtle snipe?

Numerous people on this forum have great facility with the English language, and they are able to place viper-tongued barbs, guaranteed to provoke, into their posts.... without getting called on it...

Such posts are just as hurtful and just as malicious. IMO, there is a very fine line between an open flame and a carefully-worded insult.

Moreover, I have sometimes gotten the impression that here have been deliberate and subtle attempts to provoke those members that are more volatile.. more hot-tempered....

I have a warm temper myself... so I can appreciate that infuriating feeling of being goaded.... And at times, all the internal reasoning in the world does not prevent an individual from seeing red.... Especially when that person perceives somebody they care about is being attacked...

I understand why Buck made the decision he did... and I do respect this... but I would, nonetheless, like to see Grunt given another chance... And if people are going to get into trouble for employing flames.. than let us consider how we define *a flame*.....

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:51 pm

I am at work right now, and swamped with a patient load from hell, so I will be brief. Hopefully I can post more later.

Grunty is part of SYM's family. He screwed up. I can see getting his hand slapped. But I would hope there was an alternative other than banning. He is an integral part of not only SYM, but GameBanshee forums in general.

I read where some people threatened to leave if something was not done about Grunty. I can not help but wonder if it might not have been some of the same people who have been repeatedly hostile and inflamatory to others, yet dressed it up in cloaks of semantics, until they were safe from any sort of repremand. It is all in how you play the game. Some people are just better at it than others. Some people like Grunty, are just too damn honest to try.

I have seen people insulted, ridiculed, flagrantly and openly called names by people who are so good at using carefully selected wording, and working within and around the rules to take their pot shots, that the mods defended them when their targets were finally provoked to the point of breaking and lashed back.

I don't care how many coats of sugar you put on poison. It is still poison.

In my opinion, if my opinion counts, Grunt Boy's emotional outburst was in no way better or worse than these more covert tactics.

I agree with Waverly and Dragon Wench. There are many ways people here get around the rules.

Grunty should be given another chance.

The Z · Post by **The Z** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:55 pm

Grunty should be given another chance.

Erm....how do you suppose we get him back?

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:01 pm

Originally posted by The Z
Erm....how do you suppose we get him back?

Buck has to lift the ban.

The Z · Post by **The Z** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:03 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Buck has to lift the ban.

He's been banned????

EDIT - Sorry...I'm behind on times

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:35 am

We all agree to post under the rules that Buck have set up.

While his decisions might seem unfair at times, it is still his decisions, and Buck is/has worked hard for us.

We have much more leeway here then I've noticed in many other forums/boards - and the boards/forums elsewhere where as much is given, usually deterioates down into a flamefest with juvenile namecalling etc.

The community here mostly is a mature one, where although different oppinions exists - we mostly respect one and other. (mostly - because it will always go wrong at sometimes)

Such incidents as the one that have happened with Grunty, well - best we can do with it is to take a hard look at ourselves and see if we can be more respectfull of others (in here that is - I don't really care what people do elsewhere

).
Use it for something constructive.

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:05 am

I think when something of this magnitude occurs within a community, it signals a need for reflection and a serious exchange of ideas. Buck’s questions are certainly a good lead in to the type of dialogue that needs to occur.

To begin at the beginning, I believe that Game Banshee requires a strong central authority in order to provide the type of milieu that sets it apart from other adolescent watering holes. Therefore, I support the current model, with some reservations. My main concern has to do with moderator training and supervision. In the course of training to be a therapist, an important concept that is usually introduced early in the program concerns something called a “dual relationship”. Basically, this is a situation where the therapist also allows themselves to be simultaneously involved with a client both therapeutically and socially. Doing counseling with a co-worker is one example. Not a great idea. Unfortunately, especially in a rural setting, dual relationships may be unavoidable. In those cases, it is important to have good boundaries and guidelines in place so that unfortunate things do not occur. It is certainly the case that all moderators operate within a “dual relationship.” That is, they are both in a position of authority and they are members. I do not think this issue has been adequately addressed.

In the current situation, that two moderators would chose to be involved in so public a quarrel that led to inappropriate action, I feel, speaks to either poor guidelines for moderator behavior or a breakdown in internalizing those guidelines. However, the ultimate responsibility for this situation, in my view, lies with Buck because this is his operation. Being busy does not excuse this responsibility. Doctors are tremendously busy in their practices, but that would hold absolutely no weight legally or ethically if a patient was injured neglectfully during the course of care. I know nothing about the way moderators are trained or instructed, but if what we are engaging in is a process of reflection, then I believe it is clear that the current model of moderator recruitment, training, and supervision needs to be addressed. I do have some expertise in this area and would be happy to work with Buck and/or the other moderators if that would be of value.

I feel that a person should receive a finite number of warnings before they are banned. Three is the usual number in many places. I think it would be useful to distinguish between warnings from a moderator and warning from Buck, in that warnings from moderators can be used to address low-level incidents, but that only warnings from Buck would count in terms of the “official” warning. That is not to say that there are not some infractions that could result in a person being banned immediately. Finally, I think that the warnings should be cumulative. That is, just because someone is “good” for 6 months doesn’t mean they get to start all over.

To answer the last question, I do no think I could word it strongly enough that we should not let things slide completely. My concern is not so much the profanity and insults, but that at the other end of those post are real, breathing human beings who can be badly hurt by the behavior of others within GB. We need only recall the situation with Dark Poet to see the unfortunate things that can occur… Buck’s responsive and decisive action in that and other situations has been a godsend, which is the reason I feel that a central authority is important within an online community. I should say a benevolent central authority in case Waverly is reading this.

To address the larger issue concerning Grunty, since I visit infrequently I am not clear why he was singled out in what appeared to be a heated exchange with others, but regardless. I agree with Scadye that Grunty should be given another chance, and I fully disclose that my bias in this case is due to my own experience of him. Should there be a different level of consideration for a long term member that has contributed to the community, even to the point of being placed in a position of authority, in a situation where, perhaps, the system broke down because moderating influences where not available? I think so, and I think it can be done without setting an unhealthy precedent. If there is agreement that GB is an ongoing and evolving entity, if there is agreement that the supervision of members within the community has been spotty, and if there is agreement that the obvious “dual relationship” that all moderators are subject to has not been well addressed, then I feel there are unique grounds to make an exception in Grunty’s case. However, I do not think it would be responsible to simply allow him to re-enter the community without a) addressing the conditions that lead to the banning (i.e. clearer guidelines, etc.) and b) invoking some consequences for Grunty’s previous behavior. Some suggestions in this regard would be that Grunty’s would need to re-register under another name (i.e. that the Grunty “persona” would remain banned), that he could no longer be a moderator, that if another incident like this occurs again he would be banned permanently and so on.

In the end, I think the real question that needs to be asked is: what kind of community do we want to be? I feel that if we can take this perspective, asking ourselves how we want to be defined in terms of both behavior and intent, then perhaps a distressing situation can be turned into something that will become an impetus for further growth and evolution.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:54 am

Please can I tell everyone how Grunt himself is feeling about this? From the moment on Friday when he called another moderator who was being extremely irritating and provocative something quite rude he knew he was overstepping a line.

He said what he said consciencely and he said it because he's not the kind of person who is capable of suffering fools easily. Personally, it's a trait I like about him because it's very honest and fearless but I agree it's also rather headstrong and over the top sometimes.

What he said did break Buck's rules after he'd been warned about doing so before. He was very philosophical and accepting about being banned and being stripped of his moderatorship and has felt that way since Friday.

However, whilst he sighed, shrugged and got on with life, his friends have felt mortified about his departure from GameBanshee.

If he was given another chance, Grunt can't be certain that he wouldn't do the whole thing again under different circumstances! Again, I admire that level of straighforward honesty.

It is my personal opinion that swearing and profanity are part of life and using those words is really no big deal. Maybe this is cultural, though, and in the UK swearing is heard on TV and kids know all the bad words from school anyway.

So, what's to be done? Nothing, I guess. However, the salad days of SYM are definitely over but maybe they've been over for a while before Gruntboy left. He certainly wasn't posting here much and when I asked him why he said there was nothing going on anymore.

Please don't pressurize, Buck. This is something Gruntboy doesn't want to happen and doesn't think is fair. Some of us say we'll leave without the pressence of someone like Gruntboy on the board and some say they'll leave if posts get rude and profane.
I don't know what the answer is.

However, Gruntboy, or Michael, as some of you know him as, isn't dead and can be contacted via the email address in my signature. Life goes on, doesn't it. Thanks everyone for the touching freindship and support you've shown him through-out this incident. Thankyou even to Buck for GameBanshee, because this is where I met him.

Long live Gruntboy!

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:45 am

Originally posted by Enchantress
From the moment on Friday when he called another moderator who was being extremely irritating and provocative something quite rude he knew he was overstepping a line.

Don't take this personal, but I hardly think Fable is to blame on this as you imply.
Saying this is unfair in my opinion and you should stop doing that.

The argument was between you and Fable. And in this agrument, I think Fable was on the correct side. You dragged on a simple (unimportant) thing for way too long, letting it grow into a problem. By this it became unavoidingly that Gruntboy would respond, but he responded in in incorrect way.
I feel that a moderator should know better since they are a figure of authority on any board. How he responded is not honoust and excusable with simply saying; "Thats just how I am."

Taking his mod position was the least to do in my opinion, I can't say much about the banning. (though his profile does not appear to be banned) But I have never had a problem with him and I like Gruntboy.

If you want to blame anyone, don't blame Fable or Buck but look at yourself and Gruntboy.
We are all responsible for our own actions.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:03 am

I'm not going to argue with you, Rob-hin. You have your opinion and I have mine. I took offence to what Fable said, so did Gruntboy and others I've spoken to and that's how we honestly felt. If you feel otherwise, that's your prerogative but let's please not argue about this. Certainly only Gruntboy is repsonsible for choosing to reply in the way that he did. I'm not suggesting it was Fable's fault.

However, what I think is a fair point here is should a moderator be at liberty to openly debate within the forum they moderate? Personally I think not and that's something that needs to be addressed. The SYM moderators need to EITHER moderate their forums OR be active debate participants. Not both - in some situations, that just doesn't work.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:14 am

Originally posted by Enchantress
<snip>
However, what I think is a fair point here is should a moderator be at liberty to openly debate within the forum they moderate? Personally I think not and that's something that needs to be addressed. The SYM moderators need to EITHER moderate their forums OR be active debate participants. Not both - that just doesn't work.

I must disagree here - I see little reason why moderators shouldn't be allowed to post in the forums they moderate, especially in a forum such as SYM.
I can't see a reason why a moderator can't(/shouldn't be allowed to) act as a private person on occasions and as an "official" person on other occasions.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:22 am

Originally posted by Xandax
I must disagree here - I see little reason why moderators shouldn't be allowed to post in the forums they moderate, especially in a forum such as SYM.
I can't see a reason why a moderator can't(/shouldn't be allowed to) act as a private person on occasions and as an "official" person on other occasions.

I don't think Enchantress is addressing that issue, all the SYM moderators are fine posting, but its the fact that they debate and perform a moderator function in the same thread.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:22 am

Originally posted by Xandax
I must disagree here - I see little reason why moderators shouldn't be allowed to post in the forums they moderate, especially in a forum such as SYM.
I can't see a reason why a moderator can't(/shouldn't be allowed to) act as a private person on occasions and as an "official" person on other occasions.

Yes, but if you wanted to report a post that a moderator posted TO a moderator, it would go straight to that person who's post you were reporting, so then things become a bit ridiculous.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:33 am

Originally posted by Enchantress
I'm not going to argue with you, Rob-hin. You have your opinion and I have mine. I took offence to what Fable said, so did Gruntboy and others I've spoken to and that's how we honestly felt. If you feel otherwise, that's your prerogative but let's please not argue about this.

However, what I think is a fair point here is should a moderator be at liberty to openly debate within the forum they moderate? Personally I think not and that's something that needs to be addressed. The SYM moderators need to EITHER moderate their forums OR be active debate participants. Not both - that just doesn't work.

The fact that Fable hasn't posted on this subject makes it pretty clear to me that he is perfectly capable of seperating his two roles in SYM. So as far as I'm concerned I don't think that there is a need to implement the sort of system you have suggested. I for one think Buck made the right decision. The rules are good. Everybody here knows when they are going to far. That's what makes this forum one of the more civilized I know. Personally I like to keep it that way.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:36 am

In all honesty, I think Fable may have been asked by Buck not to post on this subject for fear of starting the same arguments all over again, which is pointless.

Edit: But I don't really want to talk about Fable in this thread so let's not drag him into it, especially under the circumstances.

Scayde was originally following Buck's invitation to discuss why Gruntboy was banned, so, in all fairness, let's talk about that only.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:43 am

I'll make this one comment, since my name has been invoked and my motives discussed.

Buck hasn't asked me to avoid comment, here. I just think that since this thread is a public airing of structural issues concerning SYM, the results (if any) could potentially affect all the mods, including me. So I don't feel I should comment as a private member.

Carry on.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:56 am

Originally posted by Enchantress
Yes, but if you wanted to report a post that a moderator posted TO a moderator, it would go straight to that person who's post you were reporting, so then things become a bit ridiculous.

PM Buck - thoese don't go straight to a moderator.

Moderators are just people also - thus we have our oppenions and possible a desire to utter them also. The fact that you are moderating the rules, doesn't dimish or enlarge a moderators oppinion at all.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:09 am

Honor to Waverly and others who posted in the line.
There are many ways to be offensive, and spitting direct offenses is only the last of them
(and selecting "unusual" terms is only the second last).
I didn't follow the case, and I mean no disrispect to Buck who's not omniscient.

But.. I think we should be ALL long banned, by now.

(it almost seems the effect will be the same, anyway...)