Dear Buck, Since you asked

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:24 pm

Thanks for that Z - I think I've seen it before. It's kind of funny now but I'm sure it wasn't at the time.

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:38 pm

Woah, Enchantress, cool down, I meant no disrespect, I geniunely did not understand the question, if you read it again you'll see that it was quite unclear. And yes, I did disagree with Gruntboy on things but I challenge you to find a time when I made a personal attack.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:02 pm

Actually, not that it really matters, I think the last banning was at99. And, as far as I can tell, he was banned because he was an annoying little *ahem!* Good riddance, I say.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:06 pm

I wish I had more time, unfortunately, even spamming nurses have to work once in a while.

I want to say a few things quickly.

1. I think Buck does a fabulous job. Game Banshee and SYM are a community a cut above the rest. This is precisely because of the rules that Buck has set forth, and the way in which they are inforced. In no way did I intend for anything I said to be construed into sounding like I think Buck has been anything but fair and impartial in this, or any matter. This is as much my community as is my own neighborhood, and Buck is a damn fine Governor.

Bravo Buck, and thank you for all that you do for us !!!

2. It was not my intention when I started this thread for it to be turned into a fable bashing. I feel this is inflamatory, rude, and counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish. I admire Grunty for taking responsibility for his own actions. I would hope we could all learn from his example.

Semper Fi my friend

3. Some of us have stated that there are many ways in which people are inflamatory, hurtful and rude and do so without getting in trouble, because the choose their words carefully, and play within, and around the rules such that they are not actually breaking them. Some of FM/Enchantress's statements in this thread have provided us with a very good example of this talent. I maintain that this is hurtful, and IMHO, as destructive to the moral of SYM as any choice vulgarities that Grunty might have used.

@ Chan: Well said

4. I disagree that mods should not take part in debates. This is where Than's suggestion of dual role training might help. I think our mods should be able to enjoy the full extent of the forum just as we do, including posting in the debate threads. The arguement which lead to Grunty's bannishment was not in a debate thread, but in a frivolous social thread. A joke went sour, and was not allowed to drop, until it was too late. I agree with Rob here.

5. Than has made some brillint suggestions. I hope they are taken seriously.

6. I think all of our mods work very hard for us, and try to do the best job possible to keep GB/SYM a place the greatest majority of people can spen the highest quality of time available to any on-line community. They may not be perfect. But I would hazzard that none on any board do a finer job.

KUDOS to the Mods

7. I would like to see the 'spirit' of the rules given more credence than the technical aspects of the rules.

8. I hope that no one confuses my wanting a friend to stay among us, as saying that I think the rules should be changed. I do not. If anything, I was hoping for an exception due to certain circumstances (ie; Grunty being a long standing and integral member who ahs contributed so much to this forum. The unusual circumstances which led to the banning, etc.) I guess I was hoping for something akin to a Presidential Pardon.

9. If Grunty has no wish to return to SYM, as FM/Enchantress has stated, then I suppose point #8 is moot.

10. Lastly, I would ask that this thread be used as a place where we can work toward making GB a stronger community, and where we can heal some hurts. I would ask that everyone refrain from taking pot shots at anybody even if those pot shots are completely legal and within the rules.

*HUG*S to all,

and as derMoench says, "Peace"

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm

I think there are some things people have done that certainly won't be forgetten, and in some cases, forgiven.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:38 pm

Originally posted by James Mason
I think there are some things people have done that certainly won't be forgetten, and in some cases, forgiven.

That may well be the case. However, as Scayde has just so eloquently stated, the point of this thread is to engender healing rather than to engage in recrimination, acrimony and finger-pointing.

Let us refrain from fanning the flames, and instead evaluate, in a constructive manner, the way in which incidents like those we have recently witnessed can be avoided in the future. I also think Than has offered some very insightful and brilliant thoughts on the matter, and I truly hope the powers that be give them serious consideration.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:27 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Bravo Buck, and thank you for all that you do for us !!!

I'll second that, cowgirl.

Being a moderator in SYM has to be no walk in the park. I think of the diverse subject matter - and although it's dropped off lately, the sheer volume of posts this forum experiences - and I can only imagine how daunting the task may seem at times. As always, they have my respect. Admittedly Grunt's banning stirred me up somewhat intitially, but after taking a breather and attempting to view things more objectively, my position on things hasn't changed. They do a great job, and they deserve our continued support.

During my time in SYM, I've come to know the moderators as they are as involved with SYM as the rest of us are. I am closer to some than I am with others, but regardless of the level of familiarity I have with each of them, I happen to know that they care about SYM a great deal. They cared enough to assume the rather heavy burden that moderatorship entails, and are quite vigilant in the execution of their duties, mindful of being as fair as humanly possible. They do a great job with this, and I laud their efforts. Although the banning of members has taken place here, notice that it's not exactly a common occurence. Actually, it's quite rare, for Buck and the mods give a member alot of room in this regard, serving them with warnings and reprimands long before the axe falls, so to speak.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 am

Originally posted by The Z
Forgive me for asking, but why must we argue about the structure of SYM? Why change a good thing? What's done is done, regardless of personal feelings. By whining or debating about it we only prove that we are dwelling on the past. There's a saying: "S**t happens, you've gotta deal with it."

Honestly I feel that Gruntboy did not deserve to be banned. But I know (from what little I know of him) that he'd want us not to question authority's decisions, and let life take it where it'll go. There are some things that are just beyond our control and if we start trying to dismantle the so called "law" around here, than we undermine what has worked exceptionally well in three years. If we bring one man back, what's to stop other's from saying "Oh, well Gruntboy was brought back from the dead, why not bring AR or gnomethingy back, Sailor Saturn, or Darkpoet, or Nekromancer." The only difference between the above is that people adored Gruntboy, hence the outrage. The similarity is that all were given fair warning and regardless of whether it was their conscious decision or not to step over the line they did it. And as Buck says, there will always be people who get away, he can't read through 500 posts a day. But in real life, aren't there always cheaters who never pay?

I'm not trying to pick sides here. I don't believe Gruntboy was the type of person who deserved to be banned. But what I do believe in is playing the cards your dealt. And here's the hand....

Yep Yep Yep Yep Yep. That is EXACTLY EXACTLY the way I feel. You cannot go back on a ban, otherwise exceptions can be drawn, and you are well on your way down a slippery slope.

When one person offends, you cannot make exceptions based on prior credits. Yes Gruntboy is popular, but 3 warnings? I have been told that AR never got a warning before his ban...where was the outrage then? Ive never gotten a warning before...and I sometimes let emotion guide me, so it must be somewhat hard to get a warning.

The way I see it, its the straw that broke the camel's back. There can only be so many warnings before warnings lose all meaning. 3 warnings? I thought we'd only get 1.

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:26 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
I have been told that AR never got a warning before his ban...where was the outrage then?

I have been told AR was extremely irratating, he was also not a mod and obviously not an integral part of the SYM community, it really isn't fair to compare the two.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:32 am

Originally posted by Scayde
3. Some of FM/Enchantress's statements in this thread have provided us with a very good example of this talent. I maintain that this is hurtful, and IMHO, as destructive to the moral of SYM as any choice vulgarities that Grunty might have used.

What are you talking about, Scayde? I didn't actually bring up Fables' name here - someone else did. I was trying to explain what happened on Friday - do you want me to lie about it or to be honest? Do you not like the way I didn't mention his name? I thought that was the right thing to do, to be honest and avoid slandering him openly.

I don't mean to look like I'm skirting round an issue - maybe this is just the vernacular of how I talk as an English person. On Friday, I shared Gruntboy's opinion of Fable. So what?

Scayde, for all the friendly PMs you send me you really don't know me and you often misunderstand the point I'm making. I am very direct and very honest and I am very unhappy with all of this, (by "all this" I mean the whole banning of Gruntboy episode) - can't you see that? I actually don't mean to be rude to anyone.

<DELETED>

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:03 am

Oh, this is getting reciculous.

Enchantress, hope you will realise you have just offended not fable but the rest of us.

Bye, everyone. I'll stick to the game forums only from now on. Take care yourselves.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:05 am

Minerva, OK, point taken, I just deleted what I said about Fable.

I am quite upset. No offence is intended to any innocent bystanders. I don't care anymore. This place is pretty much dead for me now.

Lots of other people have left over this Gruntboy incident, too.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:31 am

@Enchantress, I think you misunderstood Scayde's meaning.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:33 am

What did she mean then, Littiz?

Edit: Look, it hardly matters anymore. We all have our different opinions and things seem to have taken a turn for the worse lately. There are lots of misunderstandings and opposing camps.

@ James Mason: I'm sorry I jumped down your throat yesterday. Let's just forget it.

@ Scayde: It doesn't matter about responding to what I said. Maybe this discussion is pointless.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:07 am

I'd leave SYM, too, if I didn't think it still had a chance for survival. There's a nifty little feature available that allows us to ignore a particular member if we so desire. Why don't we just use it, and get on with things.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:59 am

Stop it, stop it, stop it!!

I feel like James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause" when his parents are arguing ...

YOU'RE TEARING ME APART!!!

This is exactly what we are talking about here.

@Scayde: When I read your point #3, I could see it would cause problems (I should have PM'd you immediately). I'm not sure what you meant by it even now, but it reads like you are implying Enchantress is being "inflamatory, hurtful and rude and do[ing] so without getting in trouble." If you intended it in this manner, it is not something that needs to be said in the forum - take it to PM, or leave her name out of it. If you did not intend it this way, please be careful with wording - even when you are in a hurry, and especially when using the name of someone who is obviously in a bit of a temper over recent events.

@Enchantress: I don't know what you edited out, but I can see that it never needed to be said via this thread. Take it to a PM. If you want to show to everyone that you feel you have been wronged by the statement, try something like: "Scayde, I am not sure I understand your point referencing my name - could you clarify - either here or via PM?"

I know we are all human, and we all have feelings, and we are all going to get uptight from time to time. Some of us are more mature, some of us less. But for God's sake just think about what you have written before you hit that Post Reply button. That is really all be can do for Buck, and he deserves our honest effort in that respect.

End of rant, and ...

Peace, dammit!!

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:03 am

It's OK, der Moench, mate - it's alright. I don't think anyone has any really hard feelings about anyone. I think some people are feeling upset about this whole subject. I know I am. And by upset I mean very sad and unhappy rather than in a temper.

When I said maybe there wasn't much point in dicussing this further I meant that nothing changes the fact that Gruntboy is gone now.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:10 am

I hope that you're right, Enchantress, and that no one has any hard feelings over all this. I'm not so sure, but my advice stands - for everyone - for future reference.

Peace.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:23 am

My 2 cents...

I seem to recall many people having this same conversation when SS got banned. From what I can gather from reading this thread, it was pretty much the same thing all over again. A member had multiple warnings to cool it, lost their temper and posted something which got them banned. In SS's case it was over religion, I don't know (and don't really need to know, either) what it was this time around. Remembering some of the spirited discussions Grunty and Fas had in the months following 9/11, I can see how such a thing could happen, though it does of course sadden me that it did.

Mods have as much right to post their opinions as much as anyone else, as long as they do their jobs well then there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to discussions. Personally I have yet to see any of the GB mods compromising their integrity as a moderator whilst participating in discussions.
I'm just glad they're the ones doing the moderating, so that others (namely, me) don't have to. It has to be a tough job sometimes. Subtle flaming, for instance, must be hard to deal with when there's nothing concrete you can actually call a person on.

Originally posted by James Mason
I have been told AR was extremely irratating, he was also not a mod and obviously not an integral part of the SYM community, it really isn't fair to compare the two.

On the contrary, no-one, be they a moderator or no, should be exempt from the rules, just like the President must not be above the law (but that discussion's been had already). Rules cannot be applied in some situations and not others, lest they become worthless. Gruntboy, judging by his reaction at being banned, understands and accepts this, and I admire that. If there were mitigating circumstances in the case in question then I'm sure Buck will have considered them and made his decision accordingly.
I don't think for one moment that Buck enjoys banning people, it can't be a fun thing to have to do. I doubt that he would have done so if he didn't think it was necessary.

'Bye @Minerva.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:33 am

My personal opinion is that profanity in itself are just harmless words used for emphasis. I live in a secularized society, where just about everyone swears and noone cares or even remembers the religious, moral or other implications of the profanities themselves. However, in a global perspective, this is not true and GB does have global distribution. Thus, Buck has a set of rules that aim to make GB acceptable to the large majority of the planets inhabitants. The rules are not perfect, but I admire the effort and respect Buck for having them. Rules need be enforced to have any purpose, and I have no quarrel with the way this has been done at GB sofar. If anything, longstanding members have somewhat more leeway than others, which I in no way find unjust. To this, Gruntboy was no exception. He will surely be missed, but so was Sailor Saturn when she was banned.

There are many posts at GB that offend or insult someone taking part in the various discussions, some intentionally and others not. There is still a very distinct difference in insulting someone directly, ie ad hominem, compared to insulting someone indirectly, for instance by criticising someones views. There are very many good debaters at SYM, some that can tear your arguments to shreds and make you feel really small and insignificant. This may very well feel more insulting than being called an idiot, but is within the rules of this board and in fact also acceptable within the rules of discussions in general. Personally, I find some of the actual views expressed on the board insulting and infuriating, but this is not reason enough to have the holder of those views banned (however much I personally may feel so). GB is, in my view, extremely tolerant in this respect, and it is one of the reasons I feel comfortable posting here.

Considering that we are all guests in Bucks house, it is only fair that we abide by his house rules - rules the members of the board have had a great amount of influence on, I might add. I do not envy Bucks ungrateful job of running this board, but I am very thankful that he finds it worth doing on his spare time. So, Buck, if you're reading this, your rules have my blessing and your board is the the only one I find worth posting on.