GameBanshee Forums

Why?

Why. Such a simple question, but one with implications larger than one might expect at first glance. It encourages one to take a closer look at reasons and consequences, at actions and reactions. It encourages to learn and to cognizance. To grow. We all ask ourselves why. Daily. It’s a continues process in our lives, one that has become as familiar as the blackness of the night’s sky above our heads, as the voices of our loved ones, as the pain we feel when we hurt ourselves.

Why.

Several months ago, SYM was a relatively peaceful place with, of course, the occasional argument and conflict, much as any community or relationship might go through. Nothing is perfect and nothing should be perfect. Differences, disputes and qualms are all part of life and we learn through these experiences. At least, I certainly hope we do.

I know that I’ve grown and become wiser ever since I started visiting this place years ago. For me it was a refuge where I could ask questions I couldn’t ask somewhere else, too afraid of myself and the consequences; a refuge where I could say things I normally couldn’t say. I could speak my mind here. At times it was simply my shelter in uncertain moments. Advice, suggestions, comfort; it could all be found in this little community. For me, at least. The membership was more helpful than I could’ve dreamt when I first joined. My first post was for advice and that has been the red wire through the years, although the longer I stayed here, at Buck’s Gamebanshee, the more often I could give advice instead of always asking for it. There was trust and I knew (or I thought I knew) that what was said, was candid and genuine.

Somehow, all of that has changed over the last few months. I don’t know exactly how it started, I can only pinpoint when it started. What I ask myself, however, is if that moment was a consequence of something which has been brewing for a while and was just the inevitable, unavoidable effect, or if it truly is the act itself which resulted in the crisis? (and I think it’s fair to assess it as a crisis, looking at the fruits of it all). Regardless, I don’t know and right now I doubt it matters much anyway. What does matter, on the other hand, is how it affected SYM and its membership.

There’s no trust left, in my opinion. None. Conspiracies are seen everywhere, enemies lure around each corner and the general policy seems to have evolved from fairly lenient where almost anything can be discussed (within reasonable boundaries, of course) into something closely resembling the attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’.

Why? Why?!

Why the mistrust? Why the decision-making in closed quarters? Why the inability- or better put, the unwillingness to discuss anything of it anymore? Why the ‘them against us’ mentality?

Why?

Many have tried to bring this topic into the openness of SYM. I admit, some have done so in a less than subtle way or with the obvious intentions to do harm to this place. If it’s the later, the decision was usually taken in an emotional outburst and in hindsight, things might’ve been done differently. But that’s afterwards and it’s too late for that. Nonetheless, many had the honest intention of discussing policies and circumstances in the open and if it were in any way possible, fairly and objectively. That has been SYM’s way in the past, has it not? Instead, any and all signs of what was perceived rebellion was squashed flat in an instance, never to resurface again. Gone was the trust, gone was the open and friendly environment. In a heartbeat it vaporized. Right in front of our eyes without anything that could be done about it. Nothing left to argue, discuss or comment on, because it was all perceived as a danger to the community. Perhaps it was at the time or perhaps it evolved into that because of actions taken. Again, it’s usually easier to judge in hindsight than when you’re placed on the spot.

This thread is to discuss the sudden shift in attitudes on this forum. A place where, hopefully, we can broach the subjects which have been avoided for the past months in a polite, reasonable manner such as has been done before. It’s Buck’s site and whatever he does with it is his decision, but if I accomplished the beginnings of a friendly debate, I think it would be a nice step. Or is such a goal not achievable anymore? Is it not attainable to discuss this in a civilized manner because brining it up is automatically regarded as uncivilized? Has this place changed so much that anything which (might) criticize it is gone before it can impart a (positive) contribution to the community? And if it doesn’t contribute to a change, can it not at the very least play a supporting role in my understanding and that of others about the current policies and apparently defensive behavior?

I may or may not be risking my membership on this forum with this thread; to say I wouldn’t care about it would be a blatant lie on my part. This is practically the only forum I am a member of, the only forum I post actively at, and I still enjoy writing in the Fan Fiction and BG: SoA forums. To be unable to post or contact certain members with problems and questions would be a loss. On the other hand, I also lost that which made Gamebanshee once a trusted community with friends. It has become empty and to a certain extend, soulless.

Are the members who tried to address this before and I the only ones who see this as a problem, perhaps? Is that the reason why there’s such carelessness in regard to former members?

I don’t know why, but would like to. Could anyone enlighten me? This is the speak your mind forum where any range of subjects can be browsed, where anyone can speak his opinion as long as it is not offensive. Is this thread offensive, then? Is what is on my mind outside the forum rules?

I hope not.

Regards,

Sytze.

on second thought, I'm going to edit this post out

IMO, it seems the same. It's a lot quieter and there's a lot less SPAM, but I still think you can ask for advice and get honest answers.

Maybe there's not as much "trust" between members, but that might be because there's a lot of newer posters and it's natural not to have tight bonds straight out the gate.

Can't we just have a sticky thread about how good the old times were, and how terrible the current state of SYM is? This must be the twentieth time...

I'm on the contrary rather pleased with the fact that some of the constant political correct tiptoeing of the last few years have finally worn off, and that political, religious and otherwise hot topics can yet again be discussed fairly calmly on the board without people breaking down from emotional turmoil or moral outrage.

On the other hand, all this trouble with paranoia and "us against them" is probably my fault. I started posting again around 6 months ago... ;-)

Personally, I don't feel like anything here has changed all that much. I still post for the same reasons I used to. I still talk about the same things I used to. My posting style hasn't changed. I still react to other people's messages the way I used to. I can only speak for myself, of course. But from my perspective, I get out of it what I put into it, and if I haven't changed, then the message board hasn't changed. That's how my perception works when it comes to virtual reality.

Sytze, I don't know why you've lost your confidence in SYM or why you're afraid to speak your mind. I'm sorry you feel that way. I think it's obvious that your reasons for being here are different from mine. That's the reason why our perceptions are different.

Maybe you think we're all supposed to be friends here, and you feel that the relationships between people here have changed. Don't take this the wrong way, but if that's the case, I think you need to focus on individuals you have problems with instead of dragging the whole board into your personal relationships. I'm afraid that sounds harsh and critical, but I don't mean it that way. I simply mean that when you talk about betrayal and backstabbing and politics and lack of trust, I feel like it doesn't have anything to do with me at all, and I'd be surprised if, for example, you decided to leave because you blamed the whole board for problems that involve a small number of individuals. Don't take that as specific criticism, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I still remember the silly posts we wrote to each other when Vicsun made fun of someone's use (or rather, misuse) of language and you created a thread to congratulate him. I don't know why we can't have threads like that anymore. "Please, Vicsun, by all means feel good about yourself for a bit." On an incidental note, I corrected the spelling of the word "sorcerer" in all of my messages yesterday in a futile attempt to help stamp out illiteracy. (I misspelled the word "sorcerer" because seeing it misspelled so many times made me spell it the wrong way.) If you're not going to read my messages anymore, was it all in vain?

Come on, lighten up and have a good time here.

Lighten up, this place isn't your life. I don't even see you post here that often, if at all? There are databases full of nonsense out there that you've never even heard of before. You can't bother to complain at each and every one them, but you choose to do so at one which happens to have a mature population and is extensively and exceptionally well moderated.

Why the mistrust? Why the decision-making in closed quarters? Why the inability- or better put, the unwillingness to discuss anything of it anymore?

Just gonna answer a small portion of your post here, as I'm too tired from gaming to read everything (no offense).

It started when Buck and the mods decided that a 1500 post limit would be a nifty IDEA to try, which was decided in private and immediately announced in public in a very serene and non-offensive manner.

I don't remember much of the details of what was said, but I do know that one or two members for some reason took serious offense and took the whole idea WAY out of proportion. It was there refusal to cope with an idea that got them banned; because they didn't like it, they started the whole conspiracy "the mods are always making decisions behind our backs" (even though that's kind of our jobs. The president and his generals make decisions at first and then announces them all the time, this is the same thing).

Now, because it got so out of proportion and we banned one or two members who were posting about mods and conspiracies and all, more and more started to show themselves not just because of the idea but now because of the bannings. And of course, one thing led to another and we found out that there was leaked information, and thus came a demoted couple of moderators not by us, but by the administrator himself from personal observations.

I don't remember the reasons, but I do remember that there was no reason to argue against them as they were legitimate reasons. So, that caused a full fledged revolt and a war against members and mods.

The reason why we don't want to discuss much with regular members right now is not because we're evil heartless ghouls trying to dictate this forum to perfection in our eyes. It's because the entire thing was so ludicrous, so ridiculously out of whack that it was almost as if the phrase "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will potentially be used against you in the court of law."

What the revolters thought was we were purposely hiding information for our own greedy purposes, but it was more or less anything we were to say would be taken so out of context and so negatively that it just wouldn't be worth the hastle.


In any case, I really shouldn't say much anymore simply because either it should be private information to other moderators (I honestly wouldn't care if I was in charge, but I aint and I gotta obey the law), or I would get it wrong because most of the stuff was deleted long ago and playing of memory is never a good thing in something as huge as that.

I'm going to adress this as both a moderator and as a "private person", and will likely jump around through posts so bare with me. It will also be long, but it does cover most of what goes on at the moment and recently. From an objective perspective mind you - so if somebody gets emotional, then take a deep breath, count to 1000 and then think twice before posting.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
Why the mistrust? Why the decision-making in closed quarters? Why the inability- or better put, the unwillingness to discuss anything of it anymore? Why the ‘them against us’ mentality?<snip>

Firstly. The oh' so secret moderator forum, and ..."decision making in closed quaters".

Decisions on an internet forum is always made behind closed doors so to speak. You'll not find a forum of any significant size with random people, which is moderated, where these moderators do not communicate between each other and with site owners/administrators. This is done for a multitude of reasons. Seeking advice as to how to handle situations, coordinating how to handle situations and discussing and making suggestions to the running of the board.
This used (a long time ago) to happen via PMs and often meant that some moderators and Buck was not aware of events and how they were handled, and how they could be handled. However back then there were less forums and less posters as well.
Buck then created the private forum where we could post instead of sending PMs around to each other; so we faster and more uniform could help each other, and the members, with questions and how to handle situations and events. And yes, also to help Buck make "policies". No forum rule or policy is made without Buck approving of it, we can only suggest and he either listens to us and our experiences with the board, or he does not.

"We" (moderators) are not a trained police force. We do this in our spare time, for the sole benefit of helping out Buck with this place. We enjoy no beneficial perks, we do not get extra credit, we do not get more - nada. The only thing we get is added administrative "duties" and another forum title, but we do so voluntarily.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
That has been SYM’s way in the past, has it not?
<snip>

Now, the "mistrust" between people and "factions" have always been here at GameBanshee. People have at one time or another had falling out with moderators or each other. It is nothing new.
People have been trolled, flamed, acted out - some acted out very much indeed. And there the moderator forum have helped us to act fast and swiftly to these situations as compared to many of the earlier incidents where confusion and delay were larger factors. It is merely an administrative forum, which is used in opposition to sending PMs.

Now, this recent "spur" of uprising as you seem to indicate it stems from the fact as Siberys mentions. A couple of people were (very) unhappy with a decision made and then decided to go on what seems like a crusade towards this board, its members, moderators and Buck himself. Namely trying to keep a 1.500 post limit in a thread, after which it will be closed and a new thread - with the same topic could be started. Now what is important to recognize here, is that the topic itself would still be allowed to continue - just in a new thread linking to the old thread. This was an administrative change which were supported by Buck and decided on by a vast majority of the moderators.
This then sparked the "crusade" where people started to a) flame and b) troll and to disregard what had infact been common practice here for many years - if you want to think of the "good ole days".
People are more then allowed to discuss pretty much anything they so want to, however one thing which is not tolerated is the flaming and trolling. People discussing in a clam rational manner were welcome, and for a long time the discussions regarding these 1.500 post-limit per thread where infact open. But when people start to flame and troll, just to cause problems and attempt to disrupt the board, it is not tolerated anymore.
Now especially Buck does not tolerate this much as he's spend many many years of his own time and money to created this website, and would not like to see some people acting like spoiled children ruin what he has worked for.
So by the usage of moderators, these people were banned from the forum and thread/posts deleted - as has always been practice here. This is nothing new, it wasn't even new in the "good ole days". It has always been such.

Now what is different is the amount of people who were in on this. The personal reasons for why these people wanted to act out on an internet forum and start to insult a number of people, and attempt to ruin Bucks work, is beyond me, so I'll not guess, but I doubt it is all for the same reason but a number of different reasons.
This then resulted in many more being banned then what "we" are used to - that is the new part, the only part which hasn't already happened here, and what happens many times all over the internet constantly. The remainder of things have all been here since the "good ole days"; and heck - being here in the whole time, I can indeed say that. Most everybody who got banned, became so for either multiple accounts of flaming/trolling, some even across multiple forums (this has never, ever been tolerated, by anybody) or for claiming to want to disrupt the forum by continue to post flames or keep bringing up the accounts which were banned.

It is unfortunate that some people could not accept that a simple insignificant policy change, but so be it. There is nothing odious in this, and there is no "conspiracy". In fact I laugh at this "moderator conspiracy" - because what would be the "conspiracy"? That we moderators want to "rule" the board? For what benefit? There is no money in it - it is an personal expense for Buck to have it running. To "control people"? Why and how? People come and go and "we" can't force them to stay. I mean for there to be any form of conspiracy - there'd have to be some significant yield, otherwise nobody would want to conspiere against or for something. There is no logic and there is no reason behind these peoples acting out. It is pure emotional and it looks to me to be pure malignant.


Now speaking as a personal poster, private and all, I can only shake my head in disbelief that somebody would go to the length of acting out like this. It just seems stupid to me, it is immature and it is down right childish. Normal people acting out on an internet forum? For what benefit? If I am unhappy at a place, I seek out another one and do not go on flaming and trolling and then claiming injustice when being banned for breaking the rules I signed up to. This leads me to :

Silur wrote:Can't we just have a sticky thread about how good the old times were, and how terrible the current state of SYM is? This must be the twentieth time...<snip>

Indeed. The good ole days. This topic resurfaces often - but it does so at almost all forums I've seen/visited. The "good ole days" had it's nostalgia as well, about the "good ole ole days." and so on. I'm sure there even are "good ole days" about predating the introduction of the SYM section of this board.

I miss a couple of the people I used to be chatty with ages ago, and due to real life time constraint I can not be "online and active" as much as I could back then - hence I "know" less people now then I did back then. But I do not blame anybody else then me for "that". That also means that I associate the period of time with the "good ole days", but I do so more because I miss the people that visited, and not the time itself.
Thus, I do not miss the good old days, but the people I "knew" in those days.

VonDondu wrote:<snip>
Maybe you think we're all supposed to be friends here, and you feel that the relationships between people here have changed. Don't take this the wrong way, but if that's the case, I think you need to focus on individuals you have problems with instead of dragging the whole board into your personal relationships. <snip>

Indeed. SYM is the sum of the people here, it is not a living entity.
But that does also mean that I can see this "changes" in SYM - or rather the people - from a much more objective sideline. I do not have emotions tied into this board, sure I enjoy comming here - occasional chatting or answering posts - but I do not have any emotional connection.
The forum does not change. People do.

A not-so-young dwarf's words.

Xandax wrote:Indeed. SYM is the sum of the people here, it is not a living entity.
But that does also mean that I can see this "changes" in SYM - or rather the people - from a much more objective sideline. I do not have emotions tied into this board, sure I enjoy comming here - occasional chatting or answering posts - but I do not have any emotional connection.
The forum does not change. People do.

I concur with the stuff Xandax posted that I highlighted in bold.

I've seen people change - myself, especially - as much as, if not more than, the weather. People mature, circumstances happen them to change their attitudes and perspectives on everything.

I never was as spam-heavy as some here in GameBanshee, let alone SYM. If anyone checked many past threads, posts, and what-not by me, they'd see some changes in me, mostly as my hilarious roleplay outtakes faded and I began taking a much more serious attitude over things. I was tired of being trying make great impressions of myself, and decided if anything good was going to get done, it was time to get serious, everywhere and anywhere that was required.

With the way the world's been going, along with other people's personal lives, I - at least in my opinion - have seen a change for the less comical to the more serious, partly due to rules adjustments for GameBanshee.

No, Buck NEVER changed it to his own mad glee. He saw big mistakes come and go and adjusted them to prevent said situations from happening again. These ranged from outright flaming to excessive spam that threatened to wear down GameBanshee's bandwidth.

Buck's rulings are like that of a boss, a judge, a politician, or whatever. They can help anybody, but sadly, at the expense of somebody, practically always a transgressor of the rules/norms/laws. For the good of many - if not all - there is always a price.

Being a willfully retired moderator, I've been landbasted before by members of GameBanshee for my attitudes when I moderated for The Temple of Elemental Evil. You know what, though? As much as I have my regrets for some things that happened, in some ways, I don't care. I essentially put in my work's worth and kept things relatively under control. I retired because I needed for time for stuff that mattered, like college. Buck can attest to this.

I appreciate you taking the time to make such a well-mannered post about what you feel is the current state of these forums, Sytze. It's a welcome change to some of the inflammatory and accusational threads I've had to read through in the last six months. Let me take some time to address your concerns.

Sytze wrote:There’s no trust left, in my opinion. None. Conspiracies are seen everywhere, enemies lure around each corner and the general policy seems to have evolved from fairly lenient where almost anything can be discussed (within reasonable boundaries, of course) into something closely resembling the attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’.

This is probably the third time I've heard someone suggest the word "conspiracy" when referring to these forums lately, and I can only assume that it all stems back to a long string of bannings that happened after the introduction of our 1500 post limit policy. If that is indeed where it all started, let me provide a different perspective than what you've probably heard elsewhere.

I've ran GameBanshee for over six years now, spending no less than 50 hours on it every week. On top of the huge time commitment I've put into the site, I also have a substantial financial investment into it. After devoting a good portion of my life to the website, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I take the website's future into consideration whenever a decision has to be made.

When the moderating staff suggested the introduction of a 1500 post limit this fall, I thought it was a good idea. Not only would it help the moderators do their job, but I also found that many other forums carry a similar policy to increase their site performance. Other than the small annoyance of having to start another thread to continue a discussion when the limit was reached, I didn't see any reason why our members would have an issue with it.

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, these members started posting scathing threads filled with vulgarities, finger-pointing, and dialogue designed to incite the rest of the membership into rioting against me and the rest of the staff. My inbox filled with PMs quickly, with many of these same members threatening to do harm to the site if the policy wasn't revoked. This select group even started discussing their best course of action to cause problems for GameBanshee on another forum. I've never seen anything like it in the many years I've ran this website.

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, and it only made the frenzy worse. I was forced to demote both of these moderators and create yet another policy designed to discourage future moderators from sharing sensitive information.

Could the 1500 post limit policy have been revoked and the conflict avoided? Maybe. 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.

Sytze wrote:Why the decision-making in closed quarters? Why the inability- or better put, the unwillingness to discuss anything of it anymore? Why the ‘them against us’ mentality?

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.

As far as the inability to discuss "anything of it anymore", I'd ask you when it ever was practice for me to discuss bannings or the circumstances surrounding them. The few times I've ever talked about why someone has been banned is when the membership has specifically requested it and I've felt that it was in my best interest to do so (like now). If I had to talk about every banning or infraction that gets handed out, I wouldn't get anything else done.

Sytze wrote:I admit, some have done so in a less than subtle way or with the obvious intentions to do harm to this place. If it’s the later, the decision was usually taken in an emotional outburst and in hindsight, things might’ve been done differently. But that’s afterwards and it’s too late for that. Nonetheless, many had the honest intention of discussing policies and circumstances in the open and if it were in any way possible, fairly and objectively.

If a member posts a constructive and well-mannered post like this one, I have no problem with addressing the issues within it. By "honest intention of discussing policies", I assume you're referring to the post ik911 made last week. This post ended up getting him banned because he either a) hacked our private forum, b) used a moderator account with or without their knowledge to gain access to the forum, or c) was working with someone who had taken the prior steps to obtain information within the forum. Had he not used these tactics to make a point, I would have issued a reply and he'd still be a member here.

His post included some quotes from moderators that he felt were flames toward members. These quotes were taken out of context and the events that spurred them were completely left out. Moderators are human. They can get annoyed just like anyone else, and I'd bet that anyone who would go through the daily barrage of trouble that they deal with would probably lose their cool from time to time too. However, a flame is a flame, however minor it may be, so I've since asked that the entire staff more strictly follows our own rules in the private forum.

Sytze wrote:It’s Buck’s site and whatever he does with it is his decision, but if I accomplished the beginnings of a friendly debate, I think it would be a nice step.

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. These same members still send emails and PMs filled with poison to me and my staff (and other members in order to further their cause). One member even threatened me with legal action. It's been a nightmare for me, to say the least.

Anyway, I hope that clears things up a little bit. There is no conspiracy here, I assure you. I still hate having to ban a member, just as I always have. All I really want to do is continue working on making GameBanshee the best RPG site on the internet.

If you have more questions, feel free to post them and I'll address them as best I can. For now, though, I have to get back to my Knights of the Nine walkthrough.

Intuition tells me that I should let Buck have the last word and let that be that, but I did have one thing to add. I haven't been around GB/SYM much recently (law school is time consuming), but from my removed vantage point, it seems like SYM is still what you make of it. To reiterate what has been said by Galuf, Xandax, Mar, et al., SYM changes, and sometimes people get pissy. But at the end of the day, imo enough people care about GB that it will remain an oasis of quality in the otherwise barren desert of internet forums.

(There is a 1500 post limit now? Like, per thread? And people were mad about this? I should have paid close attention in the recent past...)

My thanks to anyone for their response and willingness to discuss this slippery subject. Openly. Also, my apologies for my inability to answer everyone right now (especially you, Buck. I know this takes a lot of energy you would have preferred to invest in something different), but this is taking time and effort. I’ll likely get to it tomorrow.

Beforehand it should be noted, however, that unlike the apparent belief by some, this is not just about me, nor anyone in specific. This is about discussing problems such as the way people have been treated or mistreated. And they go both ways, affect both parts in this circumstance, so I hope it is not assumed I automatically condone previous actions taken by one side or the other. That said, most attempts at a discussion were ignored or removed after they were posted. They were up barely a few minutes, not long enough to enjoy the light of day in its splendor. Now, I’m not saying some didn’t deserve the consequences, but there were also a few sincere attempts which wanted to shed some light on the decision-making process that was going on, while others simply wanted a fair explanation. Much, if not all, was gone pretty fast after it was posted. Is that fair? (Regardless of what the answer might be, I’m just glad it’s now possible to discuss this subject -whatever the reason.)

On another note, pinpointing this on ‘the good old days’ again is getting kind of… tedious, is it not? Some of you (Silur and Xan in this case), approach the idea as negative, as something which is regarded on a pure emotional basis, founded on nostalgia and some strange form of homesickness. Blaming this all on a vague and widely interpretable conception called ‘the good old days’ is oversimplifying and diminishing that what is or has been going on. Not every change turns out to be good, not every new situation is per definition an ‘improvement’. Neither am I saying the past is better than our current state, but to reduce this discussion and my post to a simple feeling of longing to how times once were is in my opinion too easy and too simple an approach. Moreover, my post is not intended to resurface such an argument.



On to more specific replies:

@ Siberys: I don’t mean to dismiss the points you make, but as I mentioned in my first post: It’s not really useful (for the sake of the debate) to recall what exactly triggered the upheaval. There are different views about how this started and each has said his or her piece. At least I hope so. One thing I do think is worth mentioning, though, is the following. You say: “we banned one or two members”. I think that neatly sums up the lack of care for members, which is one of my main concerns. They were not strangers or people who posted profanity; they were serious, even committed and dedicated members who were or could be assets to SYM if not other subforums. Moreover, if it sincerely surprises you that others became upset because their friends were banned, isn’t that an indication of the change in attitude towards members? Does that not imply the carelessness I spoke of?


@Mah: I know you believe that way, and I’ve grasped your point. However, I hope you also realise that a request for transparency and clarity is not the same as a demand for democracy. What also upsets me to a certain degree is the ease with which you say “if you don’t agree, move on or leave”. That would indeed be the simplest route to travel on; no discussions, no disagreements, only peace and quiet. Yet, on the other hand, it is also a path not easily taken. Building relations, finding a place and consequently staying there once you found it, involves time and energy. If policies or people change, yet you still appreciate most of what you have, shouldn’t it be possible to discuss the disagreements and, if there’s even a slight possibility, to hopefully come to a solution? Why should one leave what he cares for without trying to solve differences?


@ Xan: You make a number of points which I would like to address. Firstly, you point out that a secret forum is quite usual. I would be one of the last to say such a forum doesn’t have its uses and I will not question the obvious benefits of it. But you’re also intelligent enough to see that such a secret forum contains several (build in) dangers as well. One of, if not the most important, dangers is that there is a point when a closed power group comes to think itself unquestionable. This is particularly likely when the group is relatively stable over a long period of time, and, as has been pointed out before, Gamebanshee does have such a central group of people who has been close for several years. I do not question the obvious need for moderators to discuss and consult both the sensitive as well as dreary problems which should be held private. However, the purpose, the goal of the mod forum seems to have drifted. This might not be anyone’s fault in particular; it may be an inevitable process in a closed group. Certain other institutions are usually careful to put in safeguards to ensure that this process is checked wherever and whenever possible, but as far as I know, such safeguards are not implemented in Gamebanshee. The results of that has been made clear over the past months.

Secondly, you say that this current state of affairs came into existence because of an “administrative change”. That’s obviously open for debate, but I find it unconvincing. People come to Gamebanshee for a wide variety of reasons and as I said in my reply to Mah; a site such as this might have some measure of importance to them. I believe there was no real trouble with the post limit until the moderators actually started deleting threads which did no harm and which were to be expected while people adjusted to the new rules. You say yourself that people were calm for a period after the change. I’m asking you to consider that the change itself is not the important factor here, but rather the reaction of the moderators. It might not be an option you like or even wish to consider, but it relates to my concern in my first post.

Thirdly, you mention that the number of people involved is new and surprising to you. Is this, then, not an indication that the attitude of certain moderators might’ve also had something to do with consequences that followed? Is it so unreasonable to assume that it is unlikely so many people would be intent on making trouble for mere fun, mere pleasure? Even when they have so much to lose? You may say that an exclusion from Gamebanshee is not a great loss, but you know that is not true for many.

Again, I think this shows the lack of respect for the genuine concerns of members, which, in my opinion, was not apparent years or even months ago. Is it not surprising, then, that those members will become angry and frustrated? When people have no means of being heard they become aggrieved and they will do things which they may regret later. You state that there is no logic and no reason for the members to have acted in the way they have; that emotions guided their senses and actions (quite a generalisation, which might have been true were you talking about one person, but it is doubtful numbers of people can be characterised in this way), but perhaps your judgement was also coloured?

@Sytze...To be fair, I wasn't paying too much attention when the source of the argument sprung to life, but I do have a few points to make.

Sytze wrote: @ Siberys: I don’t mean to dismiss the points you make, but as I mentioned in my first post: It’s not really useful (for the sake of the debate) to recall what exactly triggered the upheaval. There are different views about how this started and each has said his or her piece. At least I hope so. One thing I do think is worth mentioning, though, is the following. You say: “we banned one or two members”. I think that neatly sums up the lack of care for members, which is one of my main concerns. They were not strangers or people who posted profanity; they were serious, even committed and dedicated members who were or could be assets to SYM if not other subforums. Moreover, if it sincerely surprises you that others became upset because their friends were banned, isn’t that an indication of the change in attitude towards members? Does that not imply the carelessness I spoke of?

What about caring for moderators? These are people who, as many have mentioned, volunteer their valuable time to make sure these forums are among the most clean and warm on the internet and it's a simple rule that was put in place to make their jobs easier. Moderators are members too, they have a right to be cared for.

Sytze wrote: @Mah: I know you believe that way, and I’ve grasped your point. However, I hope you also realise that a request for transparency and clarity is not the same as a demand for democracy. What also upsets me to a certain degree is the ease with which you say “if you don’t agree, move on or leave”. That would indeed be the simplest route to travel on; no discussions, no disagreements, only peace and quiet. Yet, on the other hand, it is also a path not easily taken. Building relations, finding a place and consequently staying there once you found it, involves time and energy. If policies or people change, yet you still appreciate most of what you have, shouldn’t it be possible to discuss the disagreements and, if there’s even a slight possibility, to hopefully come to a solution? Why should one leave what he cares for without trying to solve differences?

Transparency and clarity may not be a demand for democracy however, discussing policies and disagreements to find a solution is a part of democracy. We all know democracy can be corrupt and we all know it can be woefully inefficient.

Sytze wrote: @ Xan: You make a number of points which I would like to address. Firstly, you point out that a secret forum is quite usual. I would be one of the last to say such a forum doesn’t have its uses and I will not question the obvious benefits of it. But you’re also intelligent enough to see that such a secret forum contains several (build in) dangers as well. One of, if not the most important, dangers is that there is a point when a closed power group comes to think itself unquestionable. This is particularly likely when the group is relatively stable over a long period of time, and, as has been pointed out before, Gamebanshee does have such a central group of people who has been close for several years. I do not question the obvious need for moderators to discuss and consult both the sensitive as well as dreary problems which should be held private. However, the purpose, the goal of the mod forum seems to have drifted. This might not be anyone’s fault in particular; it may be an inevitable process in a closed group. Certain other institutions are usually careful to put in safeguards to ensure that this process is checked wherever and whenever possible, but as far as I know, such safeguards are not implemented in Gamebanshee. The results of that has been made clear over the past months.

The moderators are not a collective, each has an opinion on every issue and each comes from a significantly different background enough to cover a large number of bases. Moderators do not make up an individual party that has a singular mind, regardless of power. Moderators are individuals as well. As seen from many debates in SYM, a lot of time they won't have the same opinion on a matter. With the strength of some of their individual personalities, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they consider as many viewpoints as they can.

Sytze wrote: Secondly, you say that this current state of affairs came into existence because of an “administrative change”. That’s obviously open for debate, but I find it unconvincing. People come to Gamebanshee for a wide variety of reasons and as I said in my reply to Mah; a site such as this might have some measure of importance to them. I believe there was no real trouble with the post limit until the moderators actually started deleting threads which did no harm and which were to be expected while people adjusted to the new rules. You say yourself that people were calm for a period after the change. I’m asking you to consider that the change itself is not the important factor here, but rather the reaction of the moderators. It might not be an option you like or even wish to consider, but it relates to my concern in my first post.

What is the harm of the moderators doing their jobs? Most people who might've been partaking in a thread until it's death would be able to remember what had been posted and if they didn't, it's not hard to get caught up on it by asking someone else. The moderators were simply doing their job and if a thread has no further purpose and it has reached the limit, then it's a rule that it is to be deleted. If a new law is put into place, do the cops wait for people to adjust before enforcing it? What's more important, a few forum threads, or the efficiency of a site that is only here because someone is expending a huge amount of resources for it to be here?

This goes back to caring for members. If the members have a right to be cared for, than the administrator does too and if this allows him to be closer to his family and possibly save more resources, is that not too much to ask? How many people here are losing money and time with their children by being here? Being a part of this forum is a privilege not a right.

Sytze wrote: You state that there is no logic and no reason for the members to have acted in the way they have; that emotions guided their senses and actions (quite a generalisation, which might have been true were you talking about one person, but it is doubtful numbers of people can be characterised in this way), but perhaps your judgement was also coloured?

If they were being completely rational, perhaps a few would have considered the consequences of their actions before acting. If, as it has been said, there were violent threats (by that I mean threats of negative action upon the site), there was a viable reason for the administration staff to make the said decision. Once a threat is made, that's where the line gets crossed. Because that is not addressing the issue peacefully or asking questions, that is an attack. As we well know, attacks on persons at GB are not tolerated. It is the same thing in real life. Once negotiations have fallen into pointless attacks, action is taken and laws are broken. Who knows what happens if no response is made to threats? That tells the aggressors that it is "ok" to do what they're doing. Is it ok to threaten the one who created this place and allowed such goodness to happen?

@ Siberys: I don’t mean to dismiss the points you make, but as I mentioned in my first post: It’s not really useful (for the sake of the debate) to recall what exactly triggered the upheaval. There are different views about how this started and each has said his or her piece. At least I hope so. One thing I do think is worth mentioning, though, is the following. You say: “we banned one or two members”. I think that neatly sums up the lack of care for members, which is one of my main concerns. They were not strangers or people who posted profanity; they were serious, even committed and dedicated members who were or could be assets to SYM if not other subforums. Moreover, if it sincerely surprises you that others became upset because their friends were banned, isn’t that an indication of the change in attitude towards members? Does that not imply the carelessness I spoke of?

Hmm, did you bother reading WHY they were banned? As I specifically said, I don't recall all of the situation as it was based off of memory since it was deleted, but right after my post, Maharlika, Xandax, and even Buck himself explained it better than I could.

The one or two members that were banned were banned with reason, and I DID mention this part in my post. They took the new policy so out of context and so negatively that they for some reason nearly went in a rage about it; not only did they refuse to accept that the idea was a mere idea, but they thought it was for the dumbest of dumb reasons and began lashing out on mods with flames.

As they were banned with LEGITIMATE reasoning, some other members saw that they were banned and wondered why as if touching the stove suddenly isn't going to burn anymore. They were banned because of more conspiracy threads and leaked moderation information, not to mention good old fashioned flames.

Please, do me a favor. If you're going to read my post and then respond, respond appropriately. I don't think it's appropriate to call ME careless when I say "I don't even have all the facts right now so this COULD be wrong."

Buck Satan wrote:One member even threatened me with legal action. It's been a nightmare for me, to say the least.

Given you refused further private contact with me, and you brought this up in public, I suppose I am forced to bring this up here.

If you read the PM I sent back to you, I did not threaten you with legal action. In fact, I specifically said it was quite the opposite. It is neither my fault, nor my problem if you do not read what I wrote properly. It was merely a reminder for you that you can be held accountable for everything that happens on this website. Things which were said about me, if they had been said in person, or on paper, could have resulted in a lawsuit. Given the fact the current legal system does not support online based suits, I didn't and won't bother with it.

This does not mean someone else who is treated the same way won't just call a lawyer and call your entire staff into an international lawsuit in the near or distant fucture however. Without laws changing, there would be no way he/she would win. However, it would still be a mess, and cost lawyers fees and the like. That was the extent of what I was attempting to get through to you. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but *shrugs* I thought it was fairly clear cut in the way I used past tense in my statement regarding a suit, and my other commentary.

Jumping to an assumption and then cutting off communication isn't the best response to a situation like that. Rather, asking for a clarification might have been a more intelligent response, don't you think? Perhaps I misplaced my belief in the differences between you and your staff altogether? Rather than become stressed and upset over a miscommunication, asking me to clarify my intent would have saved you the trouble of all of that. Considering the way you took it, and the seriousness of the intent you believed I had, I certainly would have. I'm odd I have been told though. Maybe that is another of those strange things I happen to have a habit of doing.

I also feel obliged to add, that I fully appreciate the fact I took time out of my busy schedule to provide a friendly warning, and NOT having dragged folks into a lawsuit previously, when all anyone can do is misinterpret what I presented and assume the worst about me. Very wonderful to see how I happen to be regarded. I happen to now be completely thrilled with my decision to not do so out of respect for the owner of this website.

I'm sure it was a loss not just for the members and friends of those banned but also for gamebanshee.

I hope that everyone involved gives pause and considers the fortune of not only themselves (which they should yes) but also those of their friends AND enemies.

Thank you.

I realize I am not so much involved in this but I have been a member of the forum and have been wondering why all the people I read possts of are now banned.

claudius

Sytze wrote:<snip>
That said, most attempts at a discussion were ignored or removed after they were posted. They were up barely a few minutes, not long enough to enjoy the light of day in its splendor. Now, I’m not saying some didn’t deserve the consequences, but there were also a few sincere attempts which wanted to shed some light on the decision-making process that was going on, while others simply wanted a fair explanation. Much, if not all, was gone pretty fast after it was posted. Is that fair? (Regardless of what the answer might be, I’m just glad it’s now possible to discuss this subject -whatever the reason.)
<snip>

Now that is just plain wrong Sytze.
Not one attempt at discussions were ignored or removed, and everybody should very well know that.
A long thread did infact exists for quite a while, but when it turned ugly - meaning direct insults of people (moderators, Buck and others) - it was removed. Don't try to picture the group that was banned as some noble enterpriese, 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.

There were no willingness to discuss, there were only a willingness to insult and blackmail Buck into revoking a simple administrative change, which's only consequence would be restarting a thread. Also the only threads which would be affected by this would be the pure spam threads, which didn't carry much of an ongoing debate through the 1500 post either.

The fact that you try to paint the deleted threads and the banned posters with this "brush" speaks loudly. They were banned for direct, open insults - often spanning multiple sections of this board and attempting to blackmail Buck into revoking the desicion.
Had this group of people acted maturely and actually bothered to discuss this change, things would have looked much differently, but they did not. They acted like spoiled children who throw a tantrum in the store because they did not get the candy they wanted.

So do not try to claim I'm "colored" in my view - but look at the actions of others as well, before you try to make such a claim.

And if you 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.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
@ Siberys: I don’t mean to dismiss the points you make, but as I mentioned in my first post: It’s not really useful (for the sake of the debate) to recall what exactly triggered the upheaval. There are different views about how this started and each has said his or her piece. <snip>

Wrong.
It is very important to remember what sparked the "upheaval". Because that shows the entire incident in a specific context.
And this was sparked by the introduction of a policy in which a thread would be closed when reaching 1500 posts, after which the posters would be allowed to start a new thread, continuing the debate.
*That* is what these people used as context for their insults, and *that* is indeed important.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
They were not strangers or people who posted profanity; they were serious, even committed and dedicated members who were or could be assets to SYM if not other subforums.

Yes, they were not stranger posting profanity. They were posting direct insults and flames towards real life people, with real life feelings, and they were doing so over something as insignificant as mentioned.
They were *not* and I repeat that just to make it sink in - *not* discussing this incident in any clam and rational manner.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
Moreover, if it sincerely surprises you that others became upset because their friends were banned, isn’t that an indication of the change in attitude towards members? Does that not imply the carelessness I spoke of?

No, it reeks of lack of rational sense. If any of my close friends were acting out like that - insulting people over the web, spamming up a forum with it, spreading false information with the sole intent to try and push an administrator to change his policy - I'd properly explain to them that this is not how grown up people communicate.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
@ Xan: You make a number of points which I would like to address. Firstly, you point out that a secret forum is quite usual. I would be one of the last to say such a forum doesn’t have its uses and I will not question the obvious benefits of it. But you’re also intelligent enough to see that such a secret forum contains several (build in) dangers as well. One of, if not the most important, dangers is that there is a point when a closed power group comes to think itself unquestionable. <snip>

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.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
This is particularly likely when the group is relatively stable over a long period of time, and, as has been pointed out before, Gamebanshee does have such a central group of people who has been close for several years. I do not question the obvious need for moderators to discuss and consult both the sensitive as well as dreary problems which should be held private. However, the purpose, the goal of the mod forum seems to have drifted.
<snip>

Again - your bias.
You have no idea that the mod forum "seems to have drifted". You just assume so, likely based on some snippets of information taken *way* out of context, which were "leaked"/stolen from said forum.

If you wish to discuss objectively and mature - then by all mean do so, but if you simply want to claim your bias as truth, then there is no need to keep answering you.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
This might not be anyone’s fault in particular; it may be an inevitable process in a closed group. Certain other institutions are usually careful to put in safeguards to ensure that this process is checked wherever and whenever possible, but as far as I know, such safeguards are not implemented in Gamebanshee. The results of that has been made clear over the past months.<snip>

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.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
Secondly, you say that this current state of affairs came into existence because of an “administrative change”. That’s obviously open for debate, but I find it unconvincing. People come to Gamebanshee for a wide variety of reasons and as I said in my reply to Mah; a site such as this might have some measure of importance to them. I believe there was no real trouble with the post limit until the moderators actually started deleting threads which did no harm and which were to be expected while people adjusted to the new rules. You say yourself that people were calm for a period after the change. I’m asking you to consider that the change itself is not the important factor here, but rather the reaction of the moderators. It might not be an option you like or even wish to consider, but it relates to my concern in my first post.
<snip>

The change was purely administrative, there is no denying it. The thread would be closed (by a moderator) after it reached 1500 posts but people could restart a new one linking to the old. That way no discussion would be lost and a backtrack would always be possible. The only difference was now 2 threads instead of 1. This was implemented due to a number of arguments (least of all not from me, who presented 4-5 points, I think it was) which pointed out the advantage from a moderator-point of view.

People might come to various boards for various reasons yes, but that again also brings up forum rules. You sign up to the rules and you sign up to rules may change. Rules were broken - excessively, and people were banned as a consequence. It is very black and white. There is very little shade of grey in this, at least in the open part of these peoples actions. What they talked about in their own secret forum - I do not know (black, kettle, pot?)

Sytze wrote:<snip>
Thirdly, you mention that the number of people involved is new and surprising to you. Is this, then, not an indication that the attitude of certain moderators might’ve also had something to do with consequences that followed? Is it so unreasonable to assume that it is unlikely so many people would be intent on making trouble for mere fun, mere pleasure? Even when they have so much to lose? You may say that an exclusion from Gamebanshee is not a great loss, but you know that is not true for many. <snip>

Is it so unreasonable? No. But when I look back at the specific actions taken by some/most of the banned group, it bares resemblance to certain political groups which band together across differences, because they all are "anti" something, and then see an opportunity to cause more havoc as a group then on their own.

.... continued next post.

Sytze wrote:<snip>
Again, I think this shows the lack of respect for the genuine concerns of members, which, in my opinion, was not apparent years or even months ago. Is it not surprising, then, that those members will become angry and frustrated? When people have no means of being heard they become aggrieved and they will do things which they may regret later. You state that there is no logic and no reason for the members to have acted in the way they have; that emotions guided their senses and actions (quite a generalisation, which might have been true were you talking about one person, but it is doubtful numbers of people can be characterised in this way), but perhaps your judgement was also coloured?

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.

And yes, I "generalize" that emotions where what controlled these people, but I do so based on their actions. You know - not because of what I "think", but what they actually did. Something you - as read from this post of yours - could learn from.

Look at the facts before you start claiming any sort of high road for these people.
They were in direct violation of long standing rules at this board. Rules they signed up to. They were banned as a consequence.
It is that easy, and it is that black and white.
So don't claim that I'm colored in judgment, but look at your own statements, then find the actual facts to back it up. Lest this discussion is over because you present nothing but biased nonsense.

Just once more so it stands clear. These people were not interested in a mature and open discussion. They were interested in causing enough trouble so that Buck would reverse his decision (and remove at least some moderators at the same time).

[QUOTE=Sytze]@Mah: I know you believe that way, and I’ve grasped your point. However, I hope you also realise that a request for transparency and clarity is not the same as a demand for democracy. What also upsets me to a certain degree is the ease with which you say “if you don’t agree, move on or leave”. That would indeed be the simplest route to travel on; no discussions, no disagreements, only peace and quiet. Yet, on the other hand, it is also a path not easily taken. Building relations, finding a place and consequently staying there once you found it, involves time and energy. If policies or people change, yet you still appreciate most of what you have, shouldn’t it be possible to discuss the disagreements and, if there’s even a slight possibility, to hopefully come to a solution? Why should one leave what he cares for without trying to solve differences?[/QUOTE]

Transparency? You want transparency like having the Mod Forum for public viewing? Why not? But what for? What purpose would it serve? So that anyone can have their piece of every Tom, Dick, and Harry issues and demand satisfaction for whatever the mods decide on? THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WOULD OPPOSE SOMETHING NO MATTER WHAT.

What you don't realize is that we mods do debate on issues and none of us are yes-men (or women ).

Take the two former mods who got booted out:
There was a debate.

The obvious majority didn't agree with them.

The proposal was presented to Buck for his approval.

Buck could have opted to choose in favor of those two regardless of the majority's decision.

Unfortunately for the two, their cause wasn't in accordance to what Buck thought to be the better option.

During the course of the debate, someone or some persons were leaking these PRIVATE discussions to their friends (You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who would be the viable suspects )

These leakages were now ammos used as the mob started on picking on some targetted mods and blaming these people for having the new rule come to fore.

This act alone has shown us how sneaky and scheming this person(s) is just to further his cause and incite his friends to protest and do something to force Buck to reconsider.

Take note that Buck had his reasons of stripping the two of their modship --- but he never banned them outright.

The first got banned after violating forum rules.

The other just got recently banned too, months after the other one. Obviously, Buck and the supermods have had enough of his "subtle" ways in stoking the fire --- and yet he remained active. And since there is a legitimate reason to ban him, that fella got the ax too just a few days ago.

These "forms of protests" were in the form of violating forum rules. If we were really arbitrary about it, the supermods and Buck could have just banned members simply by being guilty of association. But no, these banned members did something individually that would justify and validate the suspension of their posting PRIVILEGES. Some would purposely agitate and provoke things just like stoking the fire. A number of them purposely violated forum rules in order to get banned. Somehow this reminded me of those suicide bomber terrorists.

You want clarity? That's where PM's come in and we have done our best to answer them. If I feel that Buck or the supermods have more of the authority to explain, then I refer these points to them.

When people PM me and question my decision, I never felt or acted that my decision is final. I always refer them to the higher ups when questioned and I ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR that if my decision is reversed, it would be done without ill-feelings or protest coming from me. Que sera, sera (whatever will be, will be).

What you don't realize is that at the forum, we mods would have some disagreements. It is not uncommon for fable and Xandax to disagree on certain issues.

However, when the group has decided collectively AND with Buck's approval at that, those whose opinions were opposed to the decision WOULD NOT LEAK OUT these points of disagreement hoping that they would get their way by inciting public outrage... talk about emotional blackmail here.

One thing that I have noticed tho:

A significant number of these banned members just gravitated towards each other simply because they have an issue to grind against certain mods, nevermind if their personal issues are not really that connected. Others don't have real issues to speak of except that some of those who were banned earlier were their friends.

There are still a number of members associated with these people who are still active (or at least are not banned) members of GB. These people haven't done anything to merit a banning.

Finally, people who do know me as a mod know pretty well that I don't go straight away to that "my way or the highway" stance. Requests and explanations ARE ALWAYS DONE FIRST.

It's when people are so beligerent of not following forum rules just because their whims are not met nor are they in conjunction with the wishes of Buck, THAT IS WHEN I WOULD LIKE TO TELL THEM: "You still are not happy with it? You want to make things difficult for the site owner despite repeated explanations and requests to abide the rules? I suggest you leave then."

In case you don't know, some of the banned ones I consider as a "friend" and I don't have an axe to grind against them. But they were banned and that is that.