Requesting a formal list of all banned boards

I have repeatedly challenged SC to tell me that Dorotea's blanket threat to delete all of my posts is unacceptable and will not be enforced. He has repeatedly declined to do so.

Now, maybe he's only playing coy because he wants to surprise me. Maybe he wrote up my permission to post as fancy certificate and made it into a present to celebrate the autumnal equinox, and the mail's just been slow between Sweden and the US, but somehow I think that his failure to reinforce my rights to post on a public forum has more to do with him accepting her ultimatum towards me.

I have repeatedly challenged SC to tell me that Dorotea's blanket threat to delete all of my posts is unacceptable and will not be enforced. He has repeatedly declined to do so.

Now, maybe he's only playing coy because he wants to surprise me. Maybe he wrote up my permission to post as fancy certificate and made it into a present to celebrate the autumnal equinox, and the mail's just been slow between Sweden and the US, but somehow I think that his failure to reinforce my rights to post on a public forum has more to do with him accepting her ultimatum towards me.

I'll challenge you to remember that Seb was the one who lifted your ban in the first place, which I did and do take as validation of him actively reinforcing your rights to post on public boards.

Why I've got that strange fealing that this topic is something much more than meets the eye?

Edit: Holy cow - 200th post approaching!

Edited by Nastian, 25 September 2005 - 02:53 PM.

Edit: Oh, didn't see page 2.

EDIT: Incidentally, I can see how Sim's "my understanding was that the days of BANED were over, and we had entered a new era. How wrong I was" could be interpreted as "Jason's latest 'suggestion' for SHS staff policy that they should be more draconian in their enforcement of the rules is the complete opposite of pretty much every previous 'suggestion' he, I and Ghreyfain ever made, in that those all demanded the staff be less draconian in their enforcement of the rules."

Deleting someone's post because you hate them isn't draconian?

I'll challenge you to remember that Seb was the one who lifted your ban in the first place, which I did and do take as validation of him actively reinforcing your rights to post on public boards.

So... as long as at some point in the past, Conrad did a smart thing, means that everything he does from then on is also smart?

Why I've got that strange fealing that this topic is something much more than meets the eye?

It's kind of something you need to see evolve to understand, yeah. Long story short:
- Jason and dorotea don't get along.
- Jason posted a flippant (joke) remark in a thread in dorotea's message board.
- dorotea deleted it.
- Jason followed the regular channels to lodge a complaint, and nothing apparent was done.
- Now we have this thread, where the Studios staff tell us everything's okay, and to take your grievances to private discussions, so everyone else doesn't know something rotten's going on.

Only the last sentence there has any of my personal bias in it, so if you want to try to form an opinion, go for it.

Edited by Ghreyfain, 25 September 2005 - 04:54 PM.

- Jason followed the regular channels to lodge a complaint, and nothing apparent was done.

Because pictures weren't posted showing Dorotea flogged, nor her forum removed, assumptions were made that nothing was done. Thus we get to spend the following days with threads such as this one. Here is where the problem lies. (Honestly Ghrey, you know as well as I do that this entire incident isn't the real issue. It's a clash of personalities and histories being fenced with.) It's entirely unnecassary and a waste of time. There is no cure for the bruised egos from incidents past, let's just move on, 'eh?
When did it stop being about enjoying modding as a fun hobby?

When I see no evidence of something being done, yeah, I assume nothing's been done. Has something been done?

My ego doesn't feel bruised, my level of fun is high, and I don't think trying to make Studios better is a waste of time.

When I see no evidence of something being done, yeah, I assume nothing's been done.  Has something been done?

My ego doesn't feel bruised, my level of fun is high, and I don't think trying to make Studios better is a waste of time.

Something has been done. Visible or not.

I was not referring to your ego, you didn't start the thread. I'm glad your level of fun is high. However I disagree that threads like this have any potential of making Studios, "better".

Actually, it was the eight of you declining to overrule the blanket warning that all of my posts would be deleted, and SC admitting when pressed that he didn't really know what had been said to her, which clued me in that perhaps... nothing, in fact, was being done. (Except Seifer editing out the bit about me being made of slime, yes, that was very thoughtful of you, Seifer.)

When did it stop being about enjoying modding as a fun hobby?

Ah, the hobby police again. Tell me, what's the fun in deleting posts? Or having your posts deleted? I rather think that by trying to be rid of this behavior, I'm improving the fun, not diminishing it. Or at the very least, by exposing it, I can help others steer clear of it. Since I assure you, it's not really very fun having your posts deleted. That's... 50, 60 seconds of my life I won't get back.

Besides, you people chirping on about "hobby" are the ones with the big fancy list of rules. They seem awfully formal to me, but then I'm not the one who keeps going on about "hobby." If playing by your own rules is such a demeaning, un-hobbylike hassle, why not simply be rid of the rules?

Is it a hobby to you Jason or an ego trip? Come now tell the truth.

Coward.

SConrad has a voice yes? Why has he not said anything on here instead of letting his little minions do the talking.

Coward.

This implies what?

I feel that I need to say something here. I know nothing about this one incident, but I see alot of names that I respect on both sides of this debate.

An old rule I belive in is: Praise in public and Punish in private. Should the offended person be informaned privately as to what action has been taken?? Most likely. I understand that there is a history and am not going to speak to that, but what should be done when something is said that offends (rightly or not) the mod maker in his forum (house) and the mod maker over reacts. Should there/is there a policy to deal with this?? First offence, Second, and third? This needs to be clear to moderators and members.

Coward.

This implies what?

That if you are a member you are not login and saying this under your name.

SConrad has a voice and used it in the "Vision" thread to express his opinion. As far as letting his "little minions" do the talking, I find that offensive. The majority of posts on this issue have been made by SHS Staff members of their own volition, seeking to apologise for any offense, explain the situation and bring this matter to a resolution.

And Ghreyfain, on this one I agree with you. Unregistered posts of this sort are cowardly.

I just re-read his post there, and it really seemed to be a perfect job of Not Saying Anything At All Really. I could--and would like to--respond to it, but I imagine if I copied it here this thread'd be locked, as well.

Try re-reading it and imagine that you're the person who had the complaint. I just deleted your post and called you an ignorant buffoon and you didn't like that, let's imagine. Do you think the issue's been resolved? How do we know? Because someone's said it's resolved?

When did it stop being about enjoying modding as a fun hobby?

Ah, the hobby police again. Tell me, what's the fun in deleting posts? Or having your posts deleted? I rather think that by trying to be rid of this behavior, I'm improving the fun, not diminishing it. Or at the very least, by exposing it, I can help others steer clear of it. Since I assure you, it's not really very fun having your posts deleted. That's... 50, 60 seconds of my life I won't get back.

Less fun than it is to have these discussions over and over again, I assure you.

Besides, you people chirping on about "hobby" are the ones with the big fancy list of rules. They seem awfully formal to me, but then I'm not the one who keeps going on about "hobby." If playing by your own rules is such a demeaning, un-hobbylike hassle, why not simply be rid of the rules?

Quite an odd statement from you. Since it was a lack of specific rules that used to be your focus. Where you constantly claimed that there was no rules listed descrying your behaviour, thus you hadn't done anything wrong worthy of banning, etc... The rules were borrowed and tweaked to be guidlines for everyone to have a clearer understanding of how things should be around here. Am I fond of rule list? No, obviously not or we wouldn't hear so many "Play nice in the sandbox" cracks.

Since (by your admissions) you are striving to change SHS to be a better place, you should be commended. However, over long debates/discussions/arguments of techniques and ideas it's become apparent that SHS and your own views on "what should be" will never coincide. Thus I ask that we agree to disagree, and you refrain from further offers of such advice. There's room enough in this community for more than one type of forum, and each member can naturally drift to one that suits them best. There's no quotas of members to fill, no kickbacks received, thus no harm in allowing such an osmosis to take it's course.

If playing by your own rules is such a demeaning, un-hobbylike hassle, why not simply be rid of the rules?

Quite an odd statement from you. Since it was a lack of specific rules that used to be your focus. Where you constantly claimed that there was no rules listed descrying your behaviour, thus you hadn't done anything wrong worthy of banning, etc...

I'm not understanding this bit, I think. When there are no rules, there's unjust banning (for the record: yes, yes, that was under the former Neilish site). When there are rules, and one follows them, one... gets his posts deleted for not breaking any rules. And the person who broke the rules (is there a rule about that?) doesn't seem to suffer any consequences.

The impression I'm getting, unfortunately, is that there are three sets of rules. Rules for staff, rules for regular visitors who don't cause any trouble, and rules for them there malcontents who do nothin' but stir up trouble. If I was to post something that irked you (the posts in this thread are a great example, I think--confrontational, but not abusive or offensive.), and you deleted it, would you expect the others to hold you accountable? How would they go about doing so? If you don't have people complaining about what's wrong, how can you fix it? How can you even recognise there's something wrong?

Reading the posts about public praise and private punishment, I guess I can see how it'd suck to be publicly chewed out for such a trivial thing. The thing is, how do we, the concerned public (hehehe), know anything's been done? Shouldn't the post that was deleted unfairly be returned to where it was, at the very least? Or, y'know, you could tell Jason, who has so far not divulged any of the other private discussions that have happened. If he (or anyone else who had or has a complaint) gets treated fairly and says so, I'd let things drop. All this secrecy is just wearing a little thin, y'know?

Deleting someone's post because you hate them isn't draconian?

A hosted modder is a member of staff?

I'm not understanding this bit, I think.  When there are no rules, there's unjust banning (for the record: yes, yes, that was under the former Neilish site).  When there are rules, and one follows them, one... gets his posts deleted for not breaking any rules.

Wait... are you saying Jason has never broken any SHS rules, or just that he hasn't broken any rules in this particular instance? Because if you claim the former to be true, well... I'd be pretty speechless, to be honest. However, even the latter isn't true:

"Use your common sense when conversing with other people."

I wouldn't exactly consider posting in the forum of a mod you don't like, run by a person who hates you, to be the best example of using your common sense when conversing with other people.

"Try to keep on topic; please make sure that your post is contributing to the discussion."

Yes there were other off-topic posts in the same forum, but just because one person does something wrong and gets away with it, doesn't mean it is acceptable for everyone else to do the same thing. If that were true, modern society would soon crumble into anarchic chaos.

And yes, dorotea may well have herself broken the rules, but then the world isn't black & white, rather it has countless shades of grey. In some instances, both sides can be in the wrong (though of course the degree of how wrong each person was can greatly differ).

And the person who broke the rules (is there a rule about that?) doesn't seem to suffer any consequences.

Having there be any consequences would be in complete contrast to pretty much every complaint you, Jason and Sim have ever made about SHS policy. If you're under the impression that little or no punishment has been meted out in this instance, surely that would actually be an indication that we'd taken your own (earlier) advice into consideration?

Hyopthetical scenario (meaning the chances of it happening are unimportant): if this had never happened, but rather Sim had deleted someone's post in the NPC Damage forum, and the SHS staff had told him off for doing it, what would have been the consequences? Answer: jcompton would have sent the SHS staff a series of angry PMs and created at least one public thread, angrily denouncing SHS' policy of poorly treating its hosted modders.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 26 September 2005 - 03:43 AM.

Nightmare :
I wouldn't exactly consider posting in the forum of a mod you don't like, run by a person who hates you, to be the best example of using your common sense when conversing with other people.

I'm sure this couldn't have been phrased better. Henceforth we must all make a point of ignoring threads of persons we don't like, and not replying to their threads, nor facing them in their forums...

=============

Nightmare :
Anyway, if you read previous posts in this thread, you'll see the senior staff have already dealt with the situation.

Hlidskiaf :
Something has been done. Visible or not.

There is the unanswered question, why that something is not made known. However, "Praise in public and Punish in private" is a good way to go about things as well.

==============

Nightmare :
a pretty serious punishment for what is so far a single relatively minor offence

From what little I know, but of course it might all have been JC's lies, is that this is not the first time, and has in fact been going on for a while. But he must have been lying, since he's a forum dissenter, a regular person who causes trouble, who has a track record of being banned, and best of all, he has no proof to show for it. It's his word vs yours, after all.

==============

Nightmare :
a pretty serious punishment for what is so far a single relatively minor offence

Nightmare :
dorotea may well have herself broken the rules

Hlidskiaf :
Something has been done. Visible or not.

The implicit assumption that most of readers would grasp from these words, is that the Staff appears to agree that dorotea's actions were not considered to be acceptable. Of course, JC doesn't seem assured at all, as he states below. Nor in fact, is it explicitly stated that it is certainly an offence, and if it were one, it does seem to be only "relatively minor".

JCompton :
Actually, it was the eight of you declining to overrule the blanket warning that all of my posts would be deleted, and SC admitting when pressed that he didn't really know what had been said to her, which clued me in that perhaps... nothing, in fact, was being done.

Of course, he might have been lying again, being a board dissenter and all. Since he refers to all 8 Staff in this blanket statement, I'm sure at least one person will be able to point out if he is lying at all. Seeing as it is that no one has (but I could have missed some contents earlier on), let's just assume this to be true for the time being.

JCompton :
Reading the previous posts in this thread indicates that the senior staff supports the policy that "I hate you" is a valid reason to delete posts

Ghreyfain :
Deleting someone's post because you hate them isn't draconian?

Clearly these two dissenters have not felt the Staff made their point across adequately. In fact, one may realise, since they are both claiming to have the "betterment" of Studios at stake, they probably are not actually aiming to see that anything nasty comes to Dorotea (at least not from how they want to be seen as altruistically correct), but rather that the Studios Staff comes to a clear stance on such behaviour. Rather than go on and on in this thread, this can simply be settled by...

Zyraen :
A simple Yes or No from a Board Representative that can speak for either himself / herself or for all the GMs and Mods here would suffice, though in the former case it would be nice if eventually a collective, rather than individual, stance could be reached.

But no, that wouldn't be explicit enough would it? All that would take would be that a member of the Staff, representing the Staff, gives this note on this thread.

"Spellhold Studios does/does not* condone the deleting of posts by moderators for no reason other than they hate the one who posts them."
* - delete where applicable

Once that is done, we can assume that people, both moderators and regular forum-goers alike, will have their minds laid to rest regarding such practices.
The rest of the doubts cast by JC, Ghrey, etc can also henceforth clearly be passed off those of dissenters who clearly fail to trust the Staff by casting aspersion such a blatantly clear and final statement of the Studio's stand on such matters.

Edited by Zyraen, 26 September 2005 - 06:44 AM.