Speak Your Mind

[CM]

I was asked to read and post in this thread. I have not read any post because it would be pointless. Styze just leave it. Whatever you are looking for out of this discussion you won't get. Why? Simple.

For a discussion to be held where there is a productive outcome you need two things, - Respect and validity. Not respect for you as a person, but respect for the substantive arguments you make. Most people when they can not come to terms with your points, bring in other factors, in this cause the actions of others before you.

Secondly validity. If people do not believe your substantive discussion points have no validity there can not be a discussion either. How can you discuss something and reach a conclusion when the other party believes you don't have a leg to stand on and you are basically wrong in your entire interpretation of the situation?

Leave it be. I heard Ik and Luis got banned and so many others before them. If you are looking to get them unbanned, it won't work. Why? Because when Buck decides to ban someone its the final decision. Regardless if the reasons were correct or not or what happened. Buck has never over-ruled one of his decisions and frankly the way this situation has been handled he never will in this case.

So my advice is leave it be. Move on. Ignore it ever happened. There is a very logical reason why hubris was Shakespeare's favorite tragic flaw.

[Xandax]

<snip>
For a discussion to be held where there is a productive outcome you need two things, - Respect and validity. Not respect for you as a person, but respect for the substantive arguments you make. Most people when they can not come to terms with your points, bring in other factors, in this cause the actions of others before you.

Secondly validity. If people do not believe your substantive discussion points have no validity there can not be a discussion either. How can you discuss something and reach a conclusion when the other party believes you don't have a leg to stand on and you are basically wrong in your entire interpretation of the situation?
<snip>

Indeed - several people could have used that advice before going out in the deep end, spewing all sorts of unfounded accusations and insults, based on out-of-context snippets and hearsay.

<snip>
So my advice is leave it be. Move on. Ignore it ever happened. There is a very logical reason why hubris was Shakespeare's favorite tragic flaw.

Indeed there is.

[BlueSky]

I joined this forum last spring after lurking for some time.
I was welcomed by a few members and enjoyed their posts and PM's.
A few of these members then got banned for various reasons mentioned, this did not cause me to flame, riot or try to stir some hornet's nest till everybody gets stung.:laugh:

And Yes I've had my wrist slapped for a minor infraction (talking about something not allowed), and once again this did not set off an outrage with me.
I knew what I had done and corrected it.... and yes the mod that slapped my wrist has become friend of mine since then.

Seems to me that all this talk of conspiracy, is just that..talk.

It is better to remain silent and be thought of as wise, than the other option.

[BuckGB]

I was asked to read and post in this thread. I have not read any post because it would be pointless.

For a discussion to be held where there is a productive outcome you need two things, - Respect and validity.

If you haven't read any post here, then I would say to you that you don't have enough respect for me or the moderating staff to listen to our point of view either. What outcome were you hoping for with your post?

Secondly validity. If people do not believe your substantive discussion points have no validity there can not be a discussion either. How can you discuss something and reach a conclusion when the other party believes you don't have a leg to stand on and you are basically wrong in your entire interpretation of the situation?

You wouldn't know this since you didn't read my response, but I never once questioned the validity of Sytze's post (or ik911's, for that matter).

If you are looking to get them unbanned, it won't work. Why? Because when Buck decides to ban someone its the final decision. Regardless if the reasons were correct or not or what happened. Buck has never over-ruled one of his decisions and frankly the way this situation has been handled he never will in this case.

Yes, I have overturned bannings. Please don't post misinformation. I've changed permanent bannings to temporary ones for a select few individuals, which reinstated the user's account after a short suspension.

However, you won't see me lifting any bannings for the people involved in this situation. They still continue to amaze me. Just today, one of our moderators received an email that someone with an IP address matching that of one of the individuals involved with this situation unsuccessfully tried to get into his account with five failed password attempts. Is this the type of member I should be reinstating?

[Xandax]

<snip> Just today, one of our moderators received an email that someone with an IP address matching that of one of the individuals involved with this situation unsuccessfully tried to get into his account with five failed password attempts. Is this the type of member I should be reinstating?

Just quoting to emphasize, as this example illustrates clearly the level of maturity and respect.

[CM]

I frankly was speaking to Styze and nobody else Buck. Why I didn't read any of your posts? Because nothing new will be said. There is no changing the situation. Frankly it is futile to change it and I don't have the time to waste.

I did what a friend requested of me and honestly he is the only who has any right to ask me any questions. Not you.

This matter is dead. Let it stay buried.

[BuckGB]

I frankly was speaking to Styze and nobody else Buck.

There's a private messaging system for that.

I did what a friend requested of me and honestly he is the only who has any right to ask me any questions. Not you.

Fair enough.

This matter is dead. Let it stay buried.

As long as it still affects our membership (which it clearly does), it isn't dead. I'm just making sure everyone can form their own opinion from factual information.

[Sytze]

Before I go into too much detail, Buck, I hope you do not see this post as an attack against you, as a demand on how you run your website, or as doubts on the sincerity of your decisions through the whole process. I’ve been here for several years now and I have seen Gamebanshee grow and flourish like the beautiful flower she is. Saying that, I also realize SYM is just a small part of your entire established community and thus plays only a minor role in the intricate designs and mechanics that likely surround this website.

[QUOTE=Buck Satan]Could the 1500 post limit policy have been revoked and the conflict avoided? Maybe.[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned in my first post, I truthfully do not think the 1500 post limit policy in itself is very important for this debate. The intention behind it might or might not have been candid -I myself had little problem with the whole policy- and there are likely a wide range of reasons, both valid and minor, which justified the implementation of the new rule. Moreover, I am unsure if it was the policy that caused the upheaval, or if there were other variables at play, other reasons which led to the conflict. Perhaps it simply was the inevitable last straw that led to the conflict. Perhaps something completely different than the implementation of this new forum rule might have been the catalyst just the same.

The consequences are of interest on the other hand and reflect on a few remarks made in my first post. I have raised this issue because your site has been damaged by a lack of trust essential to good relations between members and moderators. I do not think this can be denied when you consider the number and range of long-standing members who have raised this point and considering the number of people who have been banned. Also, I believe that in your own post you may get the timeline wrong because the moderators were demoted before the bannings, not after. This is an important point because one of the main problems here is that history has been re-written either because of faulty memories or for other reasons
You mentioned the following:
[QUOTE= Buck Satan]For the most part, the membership didn't mind. However, the policy change literally sent a select group of individuals into a rage. Showing complete disregard for the forum's well-established rules… <snip> …To ensure the safety of the website that I've worked so hard to build, I immediately banned those members that threatened to cause it harm. What I didn't realize at the time was that two of the site's moderators were friends with the members that had just been banned. These two moderators were feeding all information that was being posted to our private moderator forum to the rest of the mob....[/QUOTE]
I believe this is a misrepresenting the timeline (though you are free to point out if it happened differently): The demotions happened several days if not a week before the bannings and even before any discussions took place at ‘the other forum’. And the reason given at the time was that these moderators didn't keep enough distance from the members rather than that they were possibly leaking information. Again, if I’m wrong then please correct me.


[QUOTE= Buck Satan]Every messsage board that I know of has a private forum for its staff. This is common practice, not some secretive let's-get-the-membership tactic. Should the general population be able to read about the steps moderators use to track down a group of MMORPG gold sellers? Should IP ranges that are discovered to belong to a set of Russian spam bots be posted for everyone to see? If a new member has posted vulgarities in the first two posts they've made, should moderators discuss what action to take publically? I don't think so. A private forum has a purpose and that's exactly why all of the major message board software companies implement the ability to create them.[/QUOTE]
The private forum is obviously there for a number of reasons, most notably the ones you have pointed out above. I am not asking you to get rid of the forum, neither am I guiding you in that direction (or if I am; it honestly is not my intention), because it is not very difficult so see the clear-cut advantages it offers to both you and the moderators as well as the website as a whole. However, was in this particular case the private forum not… abused, or perhaps better put, was the private forum in this case not the most suitable place to discuss the new policy? Is it really true that the post, which started the discussion that eventually led to the eventual introduction of the 1500 limit, fell under any of the instances you mention? Especially since the same issue had already been raised several times in SYM in similar, though more wordings, wouldn't it have been more logical to have referred the discussion to the SYM forum rather than continue discussing it in a restricted committee? After all, members were involved as well. And, at times, when there were policies implemented that involved SYM, was the general population not informed (for example: choosing a new moderator for the place usually involved the opinion of those visiting and posting at that particular time) Isn’t this, then, indicative of a certain mindset that no established mod did so? As has happened just now, actually, with the implementation of the new infraction system which also caused surprise and confusion for some members and which was only mentioned until a member asked about it? It is merely an example and perhaps there are good reasons for it, but insofar they are unknown to the membership.


[QUOTE= Buck Satan]Judging by the scrutiny I've been put under, it really doesn't feel like my site anymore. Why am I suddenly being hammered with questions over the same actions I've been taking for the last several years? A handful of members seem to have dedicated their life to causing trouble here, yet nobody seems to view their actions as anything other than noble. I've lost a lot of sleep, revenue, and time with my family over the past six months and it irritates the hell out of me. The site nearly came to a standstill after the 1500 post limit policy and I still end up having to regularly address problems over it on these forums and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry you feel that way. Except for the occasional quibble in SYM, this place (in its entirety) is truly a pearl and it is a shame something which is capable of helping and inspiring people, even bringing them together in some instances, causes you pain. However, and don’t get me wrong on what I am now going to say, implementing a rule or policy is more than its immediate usefulness. It is more than an announcement. It also means getting acceptance and foreseeing possible unintended consequences. I honestly do not want to dictate or lecture you on what to do; this is your place, your baby, and it is clearly very dear to you. I have no right whatsoever to tell you how to run this place and neither am I going to. I just hope that, through these posts and discussion, another light is also shed on the situation, how dim or bright that light may be.

****

As an aside: I’ll try to reply to the posts after Buck’s as soon as possible; I understand you don’t want this to drag on for too long. Before I get into that, however, two small points:

@Xandax:
[QUOTE= Buck Satan] Just today, one of our moderators received an email that someone with an IP address matching that of one of the individuals involved with this situation unsuccessfully tried to get into his account with five failed password attempts. Is this the type of member I should be reinstating?.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xandax]Just quoting to emphasize, as this example illustrates clearly the level of maturity and respect.[/QUOTE]
And these instances also clearly illustrate merely the behaviour of one, and not that of a whole group as Buck also points out. I hope you are not reflecting this on every former member who got himself involved in the conflict over the past months? Moreover, is this the same ‘maturity’ and ‘respect’ as what Ik911 put forward in his post?


@CM:
It’s a shame you’re not willing to discuss it further at this moment, how frustrating it might be for you. I prefer to keep this going, however, and see where it ends. Walking the route you are advising me to walk might be wise –it certainly is easy- but it accomplishes next to nothing for the situation right now. I hope you understand that, too.

[BuckGB]

The demotions happened several days if not a week before the bannings and even before any discussions took place at ‘the other forum’. And the reason given at the time was that these moderators didn't keep enough distance from the members rather than that they were possibly leaking information.

A lot has happened since then, but let me try and piece it together. I made an announcement in the private forum about the demotions on the day it happened (08/17/06) and my announcement about the 1500 post policy was on 08/12/06. Somewhere between those two dates (and most likely prior, given what we learned later on), specific sensitive posts were copied and pasted by the moderators in question from our private forum to another public forum where various GameBanshee members spent a lot of time. One such member (Lestat) made the poor choice of posting a thread word-for-word from our private forum (obtained from the alternate forum) to Speak Your Mind for the sole purpose of inciting members against a moderator he felt originally came up with the 1500 post limit policy idea.

There may have been bannings before Lestat's, but I recall his post specifically leading to some additional investigation and the demotion of the two moderators (that very same day, I believe). If I'm wrong with any of these dates, please correct me.

However, was in this particular case the private forum not… abused, or perhaps better put, was the private forum in this case not the most suitable place to discuss the new policy? Is it really true that the post, which started the discussion that eventually led to the eventual introduction of the 1500 limit, fell under any of the instances you mention?

In hindsight, I probably should have opened it up for more discussion outside of the private forum. It might have been difficult to put such a policy up for vote, though, since many members probably wouldn't recognize the administrative advantages or long-term performance increase gained by such a policy.

As has happened just now, actually, with the implementation of the new infraction system which also caused surprise and confusion for some members and which was only mentioned until a member asked about it? It is merely an example and perhaps there are good reasons for it, but insofar they are unknown to the membership.

In my defense, the infraction system was rolled out in the latest upgrade to vBulletin. It's not something I came up with - it's simply a new feature in the software. I think it's a pretty good system, though, and will be making an announcement about it tomorrow if all goes well. I probably should have announced it earlier, but I've been swimming in a stack of RPGs sitting on my desk that still need to be covered.

And these instances also clearly illustrate merely the behaviour of one, and not that of a whole group as Buck also points out. I hope you are not reflecting this on every former member who got himself involved in the conflict over the past months? Moreover, is this the same ‘maturity’ and ‘respect’ as what Ik911 put forward in his post?.

While only one person attempted hacking a moderator's account yesterday, other members have been involved with such shady tactics in the past. It's this behavior that ultimately led to Ik911's banning, unfortunately. As I've said before, I have a huge time and financial investment into this site. If someone is involved in (or associated with) the hacking of these forums, I don't want them here. Period.

[Xandax]

<snip>
I believe this is a misrepresenting the timeline (though you are free to point out if it happened differently): The demotions happened several days if not a week before the bannings and even before any discussions took place at ‘the other forum’. And the reason given at the time was that these moderators didn't keep enough distance from the members rather than that they were possibly leaking information. Again, if I’m wrong then please correct me.
<snip>

That is also wrong, but Buck has already adressed this.


@Xandax:

<snip>
And these instances also clearly illustrate merely the behaviour of one, and not that of a whole group as Buck also points out. I hope you are not reflecting this on every former member who got himself involved in the conflict over the past months? Moreover, is this the same ‘maturity’ and ‘respect’ as what Ik911 put forward in his post?
<snip>

actually, if you indeed did look objectively about this - then you'd know that what a part of people were banned for, was using material from the private moderator forum and posting it here.
In fact that was the first banning at all in this case, before any moderators got demoted or anything.
Although a number of us suspected a leak pretty early in this incidents due to the wording of some PMs a couple of us received during the time frame prior to this.
This material was taken - and then rephrased, thus removing all context, and as one would know, pretty much any statement can be twisted if taken from context. I could take your posts in this thread, remove some pharses and put them together and end up with something completely different. Now is that a way to discuss constructively? I think not.
Now - this leads back to the level of maturity and respect and absolutely the willingness to "discuss" in that manner.
I know it is not custom to discuss bannings, but as Buck have brought it up - it was the same IK did. Took some material which "somehow" were leaked to him - either taking it out of context or getting it out of context, and using it to attempt to stir up problems.
Had there been actual willingness to discuss this from this group - people would find out if the context where right before flying into insults and they would attempt to discuss maturely. As we know they did not.
But alas, I am not sure you'll take this into your considerations when you make up your mind, as it seems you have already made it up using incomplete information - effectively things taken out of context.

So while this pittiful attempt at gaining unlawful access to an account is just one incident, it does speak in regards to a number of people which would be pretty obvious for most who are not emotional directly involved.

And I have no doubt that there are people in that group who does not really know what actually went on, but was swept into the fray, by perhaps the core of that group, by the use of the snippets taken out of context.


Let me just restate this, as it is the ultimate conclusion from how it was from "our" point of view.
People took material posted in private - much like a PM - reprashed it, removed context and similar. And then used this material as an offset to start insulting people and blackmailing Buck into revoking the decisions and remove a couple of moderators.
Now tell me ... please do .... how is this discussing the events maturely and with respect? How can you expect anything else then people doing the insulting to be anything but banned, when that has been the long standing forum rules? How can you expect Buck to not ban people who try to blackmail him into revoking a decision he made on his private property? How can you expect people who take material, unauthorized, from a private discussion - much like your PM box - and makes it public with the sole attempt of causing problems for somebody else, real life persons who dedicate time and money so *you* and *they* had a place to visit - (currently) free of charge?
Please do tell me...... and do so objectively and not because you are (virtual?) friends with some of these people.

No matter what light you try to paint these people in - or what light they view themselves in - that is not maturity and that is not willingness to discuss.
As I said - this case is very black and white.

[galraen]

I'm pretty new to this forum, so missed all the fuss and bother that this thread refers to, and I'm somewhat bemused.

Why was there so much fuss made about the introduction of the 1500 max posts? Darned near every other forum I visit has the same policy, and it really is no big deal. A mod sees a thread has reached the limit. starts a continuation thread, posts a link to the continuation in the old thread and closes it. I really can't see why anyone would have a problem with that, were the people involved in the mutiny simply using that as an excuse to throw a tantrum?

If you consider this post to be reopening old wounds Buck, just delete it, I can live without an answer.

[Kipi]

@Galraen

I keep wondering that question myself, and I even were here during those events...

But here is what I have gathered from the discussions of some of the members who were banned (yes, I'm in contact with some of them) and from the discussions went here during all this time:

Most of the members weren't so worried about the new policy, and were even agreeing with mods and Buck that it help for administrating this forum.

Now, few selected group didn't like the new policy. Mostly those members were posting in especially one spamming thread which had over thousands of pages, tens of pages of pure spam posted each day. They feared that the new policy would ruin all the daily discussion we had (just to note, I was part of one such thread...) daily. There was no help when mods and even Buck tried to explain that when the thread gets to it's limit, new thread may be created to continue where the discussion ended.

Now, the whole fuss begun when few members were banned for the reaso already stated here. What I gathered from different discussions, some of those claims that they don't even yet know the real reasons for being banned. And that's where all those conspiracy theories begun, leading to the result of more people getting banned.

So, basically the whole fuss was started by few individuals who didn't like the new plicy because they thought that it would interfere their daily spamming.

I remind everybody again, this is how I have understood the situations from different discussions with different members and banned members...

Oh, and some of these ex-members still hold the grudge, which some of you may have noticed by the messages those members have sent here through still active members posting here...

[Magrus]

Why was there so much fuss made about the introduction of the 1500 max posts?

Everyone seems to focus on this. To be honest, I am wondering why they focus on this. Plenty of people have brought up issues that have nothing to do with this at all, yet it always goes back to the post limit issue. It's starting to remind me of the political/media cooperation to distract people from the real problems and make them focus on something petty and unimportant.

[Xandax]

Everyone seems to focus on this. To be honest, I am wondering why they focus on this. Plenty of people have brought up issues that have nothing to do with this at all, yet it always goes back to the post limit issue. It's starting to remind me of the political/media cooperation to distract people from the real problems and make them focus on something petty and unimportant.

It is because that was what sparked it. It was that which were used as foundation for the troubles; and it was that which were used as foundation for posting out-of-context material leaked/stolen from the private forum; it was that which was used as the initial barrage of insults towards moderators and Buck and it was that which were the foundation for the pushing of Buck to change that policy; and it was what sparked the initial banning.
That other elements came up after this trouble started, and the bans which were a result of it, are pretty insignificant when trying to understand the timeline and framework.

It is very much the center of these events.
But as I've said - I'm sure some of the people who got swept into the group of unhappy people simply because they found an opportunity to make trouble instead of discussing the concerns they had.

[Chanak]

@Kipi: I feel compelled to respond to certain areas of your post for the sake of consistency, and in the interest of any member who reads this thread.

First and foremost, those members who were banned for inappropriate forum conduct (or worse offenses, which Buck has already described elsewhere) are indeed aware of *why* they had their posting priviledges permanently revoked. They were aware of what they were doing when they committed the offense(s) which resulted in action being taken. Most of these members were long-time members of Gamebanshee. Claims of nascience on their part should be taken with a grain of salt and correctly perceived to be part of the modus operandi of a particular group of individuals bent on causing trouble here in SYM.

It is indeed the mechanics of an agenda that are at play here. I believe most of the membership understands this. Two things I feel badly about: the hell this has put Buck through, and the crap that GameBanshee members run into whenever this rears its ugly head.

[Sytze]

I am sorry if I am not answering people in the order they posted; there are just too many posts for me to reply to. However, I’ll do my best to address each and everyone, so long as I find the time and energy. I am in the middle of my exam week, so I ask you all to indulge my lack of quick replies.

First, Xan. I replied to your post in order of, in my opinion, importance.


[QUOTE=Xandax] Personal bias as to how you think things are. People have explained to you, and in the past, how moderators work, but you choose to ignore it, and add your own personal bias to the "secret forum". Which never have been secret - just private. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xandax] Don't even start to talk about "respect" or lack of, when people start throwing real insults directed at people. Respect is a two way street. You can't demand it, you earn it. And you do not earn it when insulting the people you want it from. [/QUOTE]
Firstly, as to the “not secret - just private" portion: It is a distinction without a difference in this context, seeing as you want the material from the private forum to remain there and there alone. Not to be seen by others. Thus secret.
Secondly, this is not a totally detached analysis of the situation. It is in the nature of rational debate to rely on the facts which are available to you in order to come to a conclusion. And best evidence is required. As you say; moderators have made assertions about how they work; they have told us that they look at the issue and they debate it from many different points of view; they have said that they reach a conclusion, by a majority, and that the conclusion is then binding on all. Above all, however, they stress an absence of emotion in doing that. Now, this assertion, or explanation if you will, was fine until there was other evidence available which tended to undermine it. As you are aware, some material from the moderator's forum resurfaced through members’ posts. They led to wonder if in fact the moderators are as detached and objective as they claim. There is, at first appearance, evidence that they insult members in a very disrespectful way (yes, the members themselves did this too, I am not denying it. However, they got punished for it); there is evidence that they act on information which is partial and distorted. In these circumstances a rational being cannot ignore that information and accept what you assert (but then again, in your eyes I am not rational, so why bother at all?) because the source is mistrusted. This is not personal bias: It is taking all the available facts into account. If you have further facts which would re-establish the veracity of your accounts, you should show it. It is the obvious thing to do, because, unfortunately, your word alone is not enough anymore.



[QUOTE=Xandax] most of these posted numerous direct insults and flames towards various members and moderators - simply using the fact that they were in disagreement with the "1500" limit or what else they felt was "unjust". Nobody, not even moderators would be allowed to do that. Nobody.[/QUOTE]
Also untrue and repeating that throughout your post doesn’t make it anymore factual. I believe neither Lestat, Fiona or Phreddie did such a thing (insulting and flaming). Heck, I believe not even Ik flamed anyone. Moderators, on the other hand, apparently did. Why was that allowed?

I could go on quoting you throughout your post and point out the various faults and untruths. There wasn’t just blackmail or insults as you can see when you investigate the reasons for bannings and closing threads. Also, I have not claimed in my post that the banned members are all saints, I am just asking you not to generalize them as you seem to do continuously. I know that it is an easy and even more effective debating technique, but it does not do you, nor any of the banned members any justice. In fact, reading your post, the only thing you are doing is telling me that my statements are lies, that I am biased, and if I “have the inability to actually look at multiple sides of the case, which it is starting to look like, then the discussion will be pointless.” Frankly, if you take the time to read through my posts again, you might come to the conclusion that I actually am looking at both sides of the story. I am admitting that some banned members were misbehaving and that some were not doing any justice to Buck’s site and policies. Why do you keep saying that I am not? Is it, perhaps, because you are the one who is biased in this matter? You seem to be very set in your opinion that every banned member was wrong, that not one of them tried to approach the subject reasonably. While on the other hand, all that you did, every decision you made, every comment you placed, was correct. You’re not even willing to consider that several members as well as several moderators made misjudgements and mistakes. Who, then, is not willing to look at both sides?
I’ll give you another example:
[QUOTE=Xandax] It is very important to remember what sparked the "upheaval". Because that shows the entire incident in a specific context. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xandax] …<snip> It is very much the center of these events. [/QUOTE]
Are you in all my posts purposely ignoring my reasoning why the incident in itself is not important? Even Buck says “something tells me it would have just been postponed until the next time a rule was amended or another policy introduced that these members didn't care for.” You are doing exactly that which you are accusing me of, Xandax.



[QUOTE=Xandax] Now that is just plain wrong Sytze.
Not one attempt at discussions were ignored or removed, and everybody should very well know that.[/QUOTE]
Now, saying I am wrong is one thing, but there are also points that you raise in your posts which are incorrect. Actually, as I recall correctly, Buck even reopened a thread after one of the moderators closed it. I tried finding it, but I am unsure if [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/now-i-am-really-confused-79027.html"]this[/url] is the correct one. Then there was also another thread made by Fiona called [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/principles-of-natural-justice-79176.html"]Principles of Natural Justice[/url] in which she touched different areas than had previously been discussed. Other mentions include a few of CM’s various threads, although I have to admit some were less than subtly worded.



[QUOTE=Xandax] Again you assume. You continue to view these people who were banned in a certain light, instead of the pure and obvious troublemakers they turned into. People do not discuss using direct and personal insults. Not in real life, and not on GameBanshee. It is a lesson of life. [/QUOTE]
If people are not heard, what have they to turn to? If people are denied to express their opinion, what happens? I am sure they all behave like perfect citizens, even in real life.
And I assume? Perhaps I assume. But as mentioned above, perhaps that is because it is the only thing that one can do from my point of view. I form my opinion on what is given, on what information I have at my disposal. Unfortunately, that is not very much, because I cannot look at all the information there is. I try to reason deductively, I try to tie logical consequences to given causes and I try to coherently explain myself. Furthermore, and infinitely more important, I am clearly using the word ‘may’ in the text where you quoted me. I am merely outlining a possible explanation, pointing out a possible course of events. But once again you are immediately dismissing it. Not by (please mind the following) providing proof, but by again calling me biased, and by indicating that the way I am currently discussing this affair is subjective and immature. Truthfully, I am not even sure why I bother to reply to you here. All you seem to be intend on doing is discrediting me without giving any prove to substantiate your claims and, on top of that, you are pushing this discussion in a whole different direction, namely the attack on my stance and credibility in this matter. Not on the points I make.

Then again, do these posts of you not indicate the change of attitudes I mentioned before? Does this not indicate the defensive behaviour you have wrapped yourself in? I am unsure I should ask you these questions, because, to be honest Xan, your posts impress as very much more emotional than mine.

[BuckGB]

Now you're losing focus with the specific points you brought up in your original post and simply picking a fight with Xandax, Sytze. I've provided you with hard facts to all of your questions so far and don't want this thread to degenerate into the bickering we witnessed six months ago.

If you would like to expand upon your original questions further or have anything you'd like to say about my responses, then that's fine. Otherwise, let's move on with our lives having learned a few lessons on both sides of the fence.

[Kipi]

@Kipi: I feel compelled to respond to certain areas of your post for the sake of consistency, and in the interest of any member who reads this thread.

First and foremost, those members who were banned for inappropriate forum conduct (or worse offenses, which Buck has already described elsewhere) are indeed aware of *why* they had their posting priviledges permanently revoked. They were aware of what they were doing when they committed the offense(s) which resulted in action being taken. Most of these members were long-time members of Gamebanshee. Claims of nascience on their part should be taken with a grain of salt and correctly perceived to be part of the modus operandi of a particular group of individuals bent on causing trouble here in SYM.

Or, they don't want to understand the reasons...
Or, it also could be that some of them claimed so just to get others to their side...
Yes, all of them admit that there had been some explanations, but some still thinks not enough to truly explain the reasons for banning...

But I'm not taking any sides here, as I still enjoying this forum and still want to be in good terms with some of those who were banned...

It is indeed the mechanics of an agenda that are at play here. I believe most of the membership understands this. Two things I feel badly about: the hell this has put Buck through, and the crap that GameBanshee members run into whenever this rears its ugly head.

Totally agreeing here. And this is why I think this topic should be ended and everybody should continue their life...

[Sytze]

Buck, I have a lot of respect for you as a person and for your accomplishments with this site. Unfortunately, I fear you are both proving my suspicions and points correct with your latest reply.

In my last post I responded almost exactly in kind to Xandax’ way of approaching the discussion. Truthfully, I have thought long and hard on how to answer to the content in his posts, because something to it felt off. To me, it sounded an awful lot like baiting me into a desired response. Like entrapment. You tell me if that is the truth or if my imagination is running rampant, but it certainly came across like that. Regardless, I already mentioned in my last post that the way some reacted to my desirability to broach the subject seemed like less of an attempt to actually debate the subject, but more as a personal attack or a way to detract the discussion.
[QUOTE=Sytze] Truthfully, I am not even sure why I bother to reply to you here. All you seem to be intend on doing is discrediting me without giving any prove to substantiate your claims and, on top of that, you are pushing this discussion in a whole different direction, namely the attack on my stance and credibility in this matter. Not on the points I make.[/QUOTE]
In the end, I decided to reply in a similar way as Xandax (and even Siberys in his second post) did, because it was the only way to test if my presumptions were correct. With these presumptions, I mean the differences in treatment between members and moderators. It is one of, if not the most crucial red wire in my posts. Members misbehaved, flamed, and made misjudgements, this is true. However, moderators did as well and ignoring that, dismissing it, or even calling it falsehoods is arbitrary. I responded like Xandax and Siberys did, but you are telling me that I am “losing focus with the specific points you (I) brought up in your (my) original post and simply picking a fight with Xandax.”

Furthermore, underneath some of the sarcasm in my post, I believe I did make some acceptable and apposite points and remarks. I questioned the validity of a few of Xandax’ points and I elaborated on a few of my own. Apparently they were not very appropriate in your opinion either.

Why, Buck? Why are you letting their posts remain without comment, but you react to mine as if I am out to get you all. Why the discrimination when approaching different people on this website due to their different status on the boards? Why?

I am starting to feel the same resignation that apparently fell over CM when discussing this subject.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I think the various sentiments about the "secret/private mod's forum" expressed by Sytze can be boiled down to a simple question:

If the mod's private forum would suddenly become available for everybody to read, how many members might find themselves offended/surprised?

Sytze, please correct me if I am wrong.