Sign In

The deletion of the political threads.

Author
Time

I would like to know why they were deleted. Are totally gone or is it that we can’t see them? If they still extist somewhere, is there any possibility that they could become visible again? Note, I did not say unlocked, just viable. I like going back and re-reading old debates and seeing what I and others thought years ago. It seems a shame that all that forum history should be gone forever. Would you be willing to reconsider?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Looks like it is just the first 4 pages of the 2nd thread.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

They’re not wiped out. They’re sitting in the forum recycle bin like every thread that’s ever been “deleted”.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Jay said:

They’re not wiped out. They’re sitting in the forum recycle bin like every thread that’s ever been “deleted”.

Could you please inform us as to why you’ve moved them there and blocked us from reading them instead of just leaving them locked?

Also do you intend are leaving them there and permanently block us from reading them.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

I haven’t decided whether I’ll restore them or not. The primary reason I moved them is to prevent new visitors from viewing them and search engines from indexing them (they already have, but once they show up as 404 for search spiders, they should get dropped from the index and no longer actively link to them).

I might restore them under a members-only section of the forum, so at least those who are logged in can still read them.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I hope that you make them visible again in some form. I enjoyed reading old debates and I liked reading what I and others thought years ago. There is over 13 years of forum history in those threads.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

Post Praetorian said:

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

There was little desire for understanding or a genuine exchange of ideas in the politics threads of late, which is why they’re in cold storage for the time being.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Continued from https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1251447/action/topic#1251447

In regards to the would warnings work question from Jay:

I’m going to be honest I’m pretty sure I didn’t receive any official warnings.

and yes I do think some official warnings would have stopped it but I also believe that most people expect that warnings apply for small periods of time.

for example if I get more than one month and then again another month I don’t really see that as a total of two warnings for the same incident.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Continued from https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1251447/action/topic#1251447

In regards to the would warnings work question from Jay:

I’m going to be honest I’m pretty sure I didn’t receive any official warnings.

and yes I do think some official warnings would have stopped it but I also believe that most people expect that warnings apply for small periods of time.

for example if I get more than one month and then again another month I don’t really see that as a total of two warnings for the same incident.

(I’m not being snarky with these questions, just to be clear. I really want to understand.)

You don’t view warnings to other members for a particular behavior as applying to you as well? Warning Frink many times for snark didn’t make you think doing the same would be a problem?

And you don’t see warnings as having a cumulative effect over time? Because we definitely keep track (more or less, not like an official tally, but more of a “this member has definitely been warned multiple times for this” sort of thing).

There’s a fundamental disconnect between how we view warnings and how you do. If a mod says, “Please don’t do X”, it’s not a request to stop doing it for a while and then permission to start up again later.

Interesting.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Continued from https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1251447/action/topic#1251447

In regards to the would warnings work question from Jay:

I’m going to be honest I’m pretty sure I didn’t receive any official warnings.

and yes I do think some official warnings would have stopped it but I also believe that most people expect that warnings apply for small periods of time.

for example if I get more than one month and then again another month I don’t really see that as a total of two warnings for the same incident.

(I’m not being snarky with these questions, just to be clear. I really want to understand.)

You don’t view warnings to other members for a particular behavior as applying to you as well? Warning Frink many times for snark didn’t make you think doing the same would be a problem?

In a word, no. Certainly not for something as common and generally unharmful as snark.

And you don’t see warnings as having a cumulative effect over time? Because we definitely keep track (more or less, not like an official tally, but more of a “this member has definitely been warned multiple times for this” sort of thing).

Not for minor things like this. Serious things, sure.

There’s a fundamental disconnect between how we view warnings and how you do. If a mod says, “Please don’t do X”, it’s not a request to stop doing it for a while and then permission to start up again later.

Interesting.

Again, for things that aren’t really serious… In other words: Some people are snarky. I don’t expect to be banned from a site just because over a period of months or years it got out of hand several times.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You don’t view warnings to other members for a particular behavior as applying to you as well? Warning Frink many times for snark didn’t make you think doing the same would be a problem?

There is a possibility he did not see those warnings. They were not addressed to him, and I don’t think we should expect every member to read every new post of every thread to see them. Again, this is mostly a communication issue. If a mod addresses a member specifically to disengage with a certain behavior, then it is logical to assume it is addressed to that member specifically. If a mod wishes to address the entire forum, they should make a general announcement.

And you don’t see warnings as having a cumulative effect over time? Because we definitely keep track (more or less, not like an official tally, but more of a “this member has definitely been warned multiple times for this” sort of thing).

I suppose the warning system could be a bit more formal. Other forums have a sort of “health bar” that indicates how you’re doing in regards to warnings. If an exchange gets heated, and a mod warns a member to disengage, that member may think it is in response to that specific exchange. If in a completely unrelated exchange a few months later, if a member does something they consider different, but the mod does not, that member could be banned as the mod has justified it with the previous warning. Again, this is a communication issue. It could be resolved by making the warning system a bit more explicit, as for right now, it’s a bit vague to me, and I’m sure to others as well. A small remark that receives a warning could be better tracked and made clearer as to how long they follow you.

Anyway, I came here to address the post you replied to me with:

Generally speaking, yes. In the context of a political debate, I don’t agree.

I think if this is the stance you take, then it is probably for the best that politics are no longer allowed, as this is where most of the conflict seems to stem from.

What do you propose I do? Genuine question. Here are the options I see, but I welcome your input.

  1. I continue as I have been, participating like any other member. I speak at the same level as others, including when things get snippy, and in exchange we have an experience that is as close to unmoderated as possible while still maintaining rules to keep things on the rails. Warnings are relatively few and far between (as they have been, even though some of you probably feel otherwise), and occasionally someone gets banned because they don’t know when to quit.

  2. I up my game and avoid escalating confrontations. I stay polite when presented with hostility. However, because I’m expected to be a model member and mod, I can never truly engage and must respond to provocations with appropriate warnings per the rules. And not an endless stream of warnings; multiple warnings result in a ban.

I think there can be a balance struck here. You can continue to engage like any other member, but avoid escalating confrontations when presented with hostility. That’s the key word: escalating. But this still leaves the issue of role ambiguity as to where the “just another member” hat merges into the admin hat. That’s where the next option comes in:

  1. I strip myself of mod powers. You guys trust the mods to moderate (I do) and not play favorites. We’d need another mod for sure, and the existing mods would have to agree to it.

I think this is also a required option if you choose to engage like a normal member. That is, to not use your mod powers in discussions you are in a heated exchange in. I think that is where a lot of the fallout with the locking of the political threads started. You were in a heated exchange, and were upset by dahmage’s snark, which only contributed to whatever feeling the political exchange created. I think the key is that if you want to engage like any other member, you can’t use your mod powers in those discussions. This does not mean you must strip yourself of them completely. If you are not personally involved in a discussion, then it’s fair play. But if a mod is acting like anybody else, and they get in an argument, they should defer to another mod to see if action is warranted.

It’s a bit tough, but the way it goes now, everything is a bit vague and that can leave an uneasy feeling with members.

I regret not writing something up to announce the changes and providing a thread to discuss them in an organized fashion. Major failure on my part.

I appreciate your recognition here. Really, when it comes to moderating, I think over-explaining something to the point of boredom (that is, why actions are being taken when they are being taken, not the three-day retrospective we have now, ha!) is the safer option over possibly not explaining enough, even if they might fall on deaf ears. At least there was an attempt, and the actions are justified then-and-there. Again, that rests on communication. I remember telling oojason something similar at one point. Explain, explain, explain. Sounds tiring, but I think it would probably diffuse a lot of conflict.

Anyway, that’s what I think in regards to the posed questions. A more structured, formal system of moderation that doesn’t allow for any ambiguity, essentially. How feasible all of this is given how few mods are here, I’m not sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a model to strive towards.

“After a time, you may find that having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” - Spock

Author
Time

I would simply recommend members be given a specific command they can use to pause an exchange they are having with a moderator in which they feel their understanding of the rules is being disrupted. For instance, when I was in public office we could always command a point of order if the rules underlining a discussion had the appearance of being broken.

https://masterofmeetings.com/index2/articles/point-of-order-what-why-when-and-how

A similar balance of power might be considered in this arena so that your role as Admin does not need to be abandoned, Jay, but instead strictly respected within the confines of its proper mandate. If individuals feel they have a reasonable countermand to your power they would/should not be able to use the fact that you are the Admin as an automatic rebuff against you or your opinions for they would have no real cause to do so.

My preference is that your leadership remain intact. This is your site and it lives or dies at your command. Disenfranchising you is to no one’s net benefit. All that remains is for a reasonable means for you to be flagged if you might cross a boundary a member considers sacred. Awareness is 90% of the solution.

As for other members who might occasionally lapse into vexatiousness, I wish to stress that it is quite possible to discuss differing opinions without using the crassest possible means of gaining ascendancy in an engagement. A truly meaningful political discussion is not at all about winning an argument by emotionally exhausting one’s opponent…rather the general purpose of a proper engagement is to attempt to sway the readers who are not necessarily directly participating–the jury, as it were. A reasonably thought out argument that remains honorable in intent will serve this purpose far better than a proof of pettiness or irritability. I have been swayed by more than one discussion because of even tones and fair dialogue, but have never been convinced by one who has simply been able to land the greatest insults.

Further, one simply cannot bully one’s opponent towards a paradigm shift: it is necessary to be as willing and open to change as one is expecting of one’s adversary…anything less is fairly hypocritical at best.

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

Jay said:

Post Praetorian said:

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

There was little desire for understanding or a genuine exchange of ideas in the politics threads of late, which is why they’re in cold storage for the time being.

That isn’t true. The fact that there was little to no agreement does not mean that people weren’t having a “genuine exchange of ideas” (which is a meaningless phrase, by the way), it just means that people were having an intense exchange of ideas in which each other’s ideas were being picked apart or shot down.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Post Praetorian said:

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

There was little desire for understanding or a genuine exchange of ideas in the politics threads of late, which is why they’re in cold storage for the time being.

That isn’t true. The fact that there was little to no agreement does not mean that people weren’t having a “genuine exchange of ideas” (which is a meaningless phrase, by the way), it just means that people were having an intense exchange of ideas in which each other’s ideas were being picked apart or shot down.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. With the exception of Mrebo and CatBus, I don’t think the exchange was rooted in achieving a better understanding of the other side’s position because each side (myself included) had already come to a conclusion about the other’s position, hence not being a “genuine exchange of ideas”.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

At the risk of being banned, I am going to say something.

First of all I was told not to return after I made two posts at fanedit.org that condoned Colipso’s open letter. I do somewhat regret those posts. I have been told by those that I respect that they(my posts) and Colipso’s open letter went too far. After rereading Colipso’s letter, I do have to say that I do not agree with everything said. But I do agree with the anger behind it. I do wish to make clear I that never seriously wished that Jay would die(I don’t think Colipso does either). I considered the last line just another way of saying “fuck off”. But I was reminded by someone that a few years ago Jay was in a serious car accident. That could put a different spin on the last line. I had totally forgotten about the car accident(Colipso may not have even ever known about it). I do feel bad about that. If I had remembered about the car accident, my reaction would have been different.

But why did I react the way I did? Anger. Anger at what has gone on here for years. I have been a forum member here for 15 years. For a large percentage of that, I have felt like dirt under Jay’s feet. I realize I share part of the blame. I know some it goes back to my actions during what I have always called the great forum schism(now I guess it is the first forum schism) back in 2006 with the situation involving Dayv and fanedit.com(now fanedit.org). I do regret some of how I acted and some of what I said. I believe I have said that before. I also deeply regret the times I trolled on here. I admit it was childish and stupid and I am embarrassed about doing so. I do believe that even though I have tried to move on from both, I don’t think Jay has never been able to truly forgive me and it has caused animosity between us for years. But it is not just that.

It has do with years of Jay acting like he preferred the Trolls over legitimate forum members. It used to be trolls could get away with murder on here. I have been the victim of bullying and personal attacks from trolls, with Jay and his mods doing nothing. Finally, they started moderating the off topic section, but my anger at having to put up with the trolls for years while Jay and the mods did nothing, remained. To me at the time I thought all Jay and the mods should do is just perm ban the trolls and leave off topic otherwise un-moderated. I think I now realize it’s a little more complicated than that. I also felt and still feel that Jay has never appreciated the special place that off topic became(note, I did not say perfect). To my point of view, he has always had disdain for the off topic section and consequently, we(those post most often in off topic) have felt like Jay’s dirty ugly step children. That fed into the animosity and my anger. There were also multiple PMs to you and other mods that went unanswered. That too fed into my anger.

I was keeping that inside me for along time and then came a tipping point. Jay making oojason a moderator(btw, Jay should have made that announcement, not Silverwook, announcing new mods is a job for the admin). In my opinion, that just did not work. Part of that is colored by how it started. I was in a bad mod one weekend in late September of 2017 and had gone a bit too far in posting in the politics thread. Up to that time the rules, at least in the off topic were not being enforced all that strictly. If the politics threads were visible I could point to posts made within weeks of that September that clearly violated the rules and yet no one had done anything about them. It was clear that the rules were not being enforced strictly. Then I made the posts in September of 2017 and oojason stepped in. I didn’t even realize he had been made a moderator. We got into an argument and I got temp banned(at the time I didn’t realize whether the ban was temp or perm because I didn’t realize it was oojason that banned me). It shortly became clear that oojason was very strictly enforcing the rules. The problem is, until after I got banned, no one had given any warning that the rules were now going to be more strictly enforced. Another thing was that I got temp banned before anything had been done to the likes of Darth Id, General Frevious, and Jediuze(I forget how it is spelled and I can’t see the politic thread to get the right spelling) which were clearly trolls and had behaved much worse than I did. This was a tipping off point for me. It made me think there was a double standard going on. It just further cemented my anger. But I again tried to more on from it. Then oojason went nitpicking in the offtopic section and punished people for ridiculous things. He was ruining the fun for a lot of people. I think oojason did a terrible job, I am not the only one that thinks so. It didn’t help that we did not know whether Jay ordered that the rules be more strictly enforced or whether oojason had taken it upon himself to do so. I felt that he treated me like he was so much better than I and like I was some sort of terrible and despicable person who needed to be taught how to behave by him. He always assumed the worse about my intentions. That even further cemented my anger. Anyway, It spiraled from there to the latest decision to not only lock the 2nd politics thread and ban the discussion of politics, but also to disappear the two politics threads(without any explanation given for the disappearance until I asked). I was really pissed. I was ready to write a flame like Colipso did. I came very close, but people kept telling me not to. So I condoned his open letter as a result of anger that had built up for years.

Things that I think need to be fixed:

  1. Better communication and P.R.(public relations). There is no way the politics threads should have just disappeared without explanation. Yes, you finally gave one, but it shouldn’t have waited until you were asked. You should have known that people were going to wonder why the threads disappeared and whether they were just invisible or deleted. It was obvious as hell. You also have to learn to realize how the timing of the banning of politics looks. Maybe it wasn’t a rash decision based on what had been going on in there in regards to the “cool” comment. Maybe you had been thinking about shutting down politics for a while and what had occurred was just a tipping point. Maybe what occurred in the thread had nothing to do with your decision to ban politics. Regardless, you have to realize how things look is a factor. Appearance means something. Another thing, poor communication when bans occur. The last time I got banned(for reasons that I deserved) I had to PM Silverwook on fanedit.org to find out how long the ban was and whether it was temp or perm. That should not happen. Banned forum members should not have to go to other forums that mods here post on, to find out conditions about their bans. They should be clearly communicated. What if Silverwook had not been a member on fanedit.org? How would I have found out? Another thing that clearly demonstrates your lack of communication skills was the situation involving your email address. I forget what thread it was, but some time ago you told people not to send emails to that address as you were no longer checking it and hadn’t been for a long time. If you don’t want to use that email address, fine. But the moment you stop checking it should be the moment you tell people not to use it, not after you’ve stopped checking it for months(or years?). I wonder how many people sent you emails using that address that were not responded too? I wonder how many of them thought you had deliberately decided not to reply to them? I know I thought that. If you are going to stop using an email address, you should inform people at the time you stop using it. You should have also given us new email address to use. Admins should have email addresses for forum members to use. It just makes sense for admins(especially owners) to have an email address. As far as I know, you’ve never given us replacement email address for the old one. The whole thing is just evidence of your poor communication skills. When you make decisions you need to do a better job at explaining them and whatever general problem you are having(like new members feeling unwelcome by off topic posters).

  2. Inconsistent moderation. Let us face it, how Silverwook moderates compared to how oojason did is night and day. They are entirely different. That is a problem. Moderation, no matter who is doing it needs to be consistent. It is not fair that whether someone is punished for something and/or what the punishment is, depends on who is doing the moderating. Tell your moderators how you want and expect the forum to be moderated and make sure they are all moderating it the same. This would also help in making clear how you expect people to behave.

  3. Bad attitude. You are the Admin here, and you will be until and unless you step down. If you want this to be a quality place, the leader here needs to have a better attitude. Quit with the rudeness in your posts. Quit with the arrogance and disdain. You say you want to be treated like a regular person sometimes have have your rudeness(for want of better wording) treated how we would treat others’ rudenesses. Unfortunately,it doesn’t work like that. Like it or not, you just can’t get way from the admin badge, just like cops are still cops when they are off duty. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Also I think it can benefit the forum when the admin acts like how he/she wants the rest of the forum members to act. Like it or not, Jay, how you act is an example to all other forum members. You just can’t escape that(unless you wish to step down).

  4. Don’t be so hesitant to perm ban people. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with all the bans lately and I don’t think people should be perm banned at a drop of a hat. I think it should be done carefully, wisely, and mercifully. But do you know why your warning and temp bans were ineffective? I think it is because the fear of a perm ban was not present. You want people to follow your rules you have perm ban continued violations at some point. Yes, issue plenty of warnings and temp bans first, but at some point a perm ban may need to happen. Another thing you could try is long term temp bans. Perhaps bans for six months or year or longer (this would be after plenty of warnings and short temp bans).

  5. Don’t punish everyone for the acts of a few. The banning of politics is an example of this. There are many that like to discuss politics that did nothing wrong and were punished right along with those you deem to be guilty. That is unfair. Punish the people that misbehave, not everyone. If that means perm banning those that misbehave, perm ban them. It may be harsh, but it is better than punishing the innocent right along with the guilty.

  6. Quit disrespecting the off topic section. Maybe we haven’t welcomed new members as you would have liked. But off topic is not the cesspool you think it is. It is a unique and special place. Yes, it needs some fixing. But it also needs some respect from the forum’s admin and owner.

  7. Bring politics back. Yes things need to be done to fix the problems you were having. But don’t just get rid of it. At the very least, make them visible again. They are part of forum history. They are part of what makes the off topic section unique and special.

  8. Remember the cause that started the forum. The oot is still not being given the treatment it deserves, yet you have distanced yourself from the petition and the cause. I wish you would stop doing that.

  9. Get more mods and maybe consider adding an admin. I think it would help if you had more people sharing the work and someone else with more authority than just that of a moderator. This would also help when at times you and the mods need breaks.

  10. Suggested new rules:

  • Do not make new forum members feel unwelcome.

(assuming politics is brought back)

  • Do not take politics outside the politics thread(s)
  • Political conversation needs to be civil and open minded. No insults, personal attacks, snide replies, rude replies. (and probably more)

There are probably a lot more I could talk about and new rules I could suggest and things I could say about what has caused my anger on here. I am sure I have done a terrible job at expressing myself in this post and it is already too long. Well I guess that is that. You may not realize it Jay. But I care about this place a lot. This is or was my hangout and home on the internet. Your disdain for the off topic section and myself, hurts. I have posted all the above in the interest of getting off my chest and in the interest of improving this forum, not to annoy or hurt you.

Finally, I want to make clear that my anger has nothing to do with your current political stance. Yes, I disagree with you about what you say about Trump. But I am not angry at you for that. Not in the least. In fact, I agree with you distancing yourself from the Democrats. Remember, I pride myself on being a Rino(Republican in name only), and not a Dem. I am by no means a party yes man.

If Jay perm bans me, goodbye, farewell, and amen.

I will never forget my time as member of ot.com. I have learned a lot here. I made friends here. I find it very sad that all this has happened. Well, I guess that is that.

Bob Falfa, I am sorry about my rude comments way back when.

May the force be with you all.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I can say it off the bat, I’m guessing you’re not going to be banned for that.

You mention a bad attitude, and that you’ve been carrying a lot of anger for a very long time. Unfortunately, and I must be blunt, I think that anger shows in your post. Not that you can’t be angry, but when providing feedback, it becomes difficult for that feedback to be of the highest quality when you’re angry. I think there are a lot of similarities between what you say have to be fixed and my previous post in this topic.

However, your anger comes across in your tone, which immediately places the receiver of that feedback into the defensive, like it or not. Like I said to Jay (possibly in another thread), if you expect better behavior, you should try to hold yourself to that standard, even in the face of opposition. It is definitely hard, and certainly frustrating at times, but it’s also the easiest way to enact change.

Anyway, I don’t want to make this sound like I’m dismissing the contents of your post. There are a lot of valid points. I just want to try to make clear that it should not be surprising if the mod team finds it difficult to listen.

“After a time, you may find that having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” - Spock

Author
Time

Handman said:

I can say it off the bat, I’m guessing you’re not going to be banned for that.

You mention a bad attitude, and that you’ve been carrying a lot of anger for a very long time. Unfortunately, and I must be blunt, I think that anger shows in your post. Not that you can’t be angry, but when providing feedback, it becomes difficult for that feedback to be of the highest quality when you’re angry. I think there are a lot of similarities between what you say have to be fixed and my previous post in this topic.

However, your anger comes across in your tone, which immediately places the receiver of that feedback into the defensive, like it or not. Like I said to Jay (possibly in another thread), if you expect better behavior, you should try to hold yourself to that standard, even in the face of opposition. It is definitely hard, and certainly frustrating at times, but it’s also the easiest way to enact change.

Anyway, I don’t want to make this sound like I’m dismissing the contents of your post. There are a lot of valid points. I just want to try to make clear that it should not be surprising if the mod team finds it difficult to listen.

I don’t know. Maybe it is coming across angrier to you than I intended it to be. But please believe me, it is a lot less angry than I would have written a few days ago.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

But please believe me, it is a lot less angry than I would have written a few days ago.

I believe ya, Warb. No sweat.

“After a time, you may find that having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” - Spock

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Post Praetorian said:

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

There was little desire for understanding or a genuine exchange of ideas in the politics threads of late, which is why they’re in cold storage for the time being.

That isn’t true. The fact that there was little to no agreement does not mean that people weren’t having a “genuine exchange of ideas” (which is a meaningless phrase, by the way), it just means that people were having an intense exchange of ideas in which each other’s ideas were being picked apart or shot down.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. With the exception of Mrebo and CatBus, I don’t think the exchange was rooted in achieving a better understanding of the other side’s position because each side (myself included) had already come to a conclusion about the other’s position, hence not being a “genuine exchange of ideas”.

Not liking what people have to say does not mean that someone has “already come to a conclusion about the other’s position.” Civility also does not equal genuineness.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Post Praetorian said:

I would also appreciate having them restored…I have often enjoyed participating therein and have a concern that the discussion of politics is at this time more important than ever given the lack of understanding among various factions…

There was little desire for understanding or a genuine exchange of ideas in the politics threads of late, which is why they’re in cold storage for the time being.

That isn’t true. The fact that there was little to no agreement does not mean that people weren’t having a “genuine exchange of ideas” (which is a meaningless phrase, by the way), it just means that people were having an intense exchange of ideas in which each other’s ideas were being picked apart or shot down.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. With the exception of Mrebo and CatBus, I don’t think the exchange was rooted in achieving a better understanding of the other side’s position because each side (myself included) had already come to a conclusion about the other’s position, hence not being a “genuine exchange of ideas”.

Not liking what people have to say does not mean that someone has “already come to a conclusion about the other’s position.” Civility also does not equal genuineness.

Like I said, we just don’t agree.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Something I am curious about is why it matters in the first place. What you define as genuine exchanges of ideas weren’t requested by the OP and he also never complained that the content of that thread was against his wishes. Since the content also wasn’t breaking any forum rules, according to those same rules the OP’s preference is what matters. I brought that up a while ago and I never got a justification for why it’s acceptable for the administrator to selectively decide what rule-abiding conversation is and isn’t permissible. Obviously you own the forum so you can do whatever you want, but I think we can all agree that that alone would be an immature and unsatisfying answer.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Something I am curious about is why it matters in the first place. What you define as genuine exchanges of ideas weren’t requested by the OP and he also never complained that the content of that thread was against his wishes. Since the content also wasn’t breaking any forum rules, according to those same rules the OP’s preference is what matters. I brought that up a while ago and I never got a justification for why it’s acceptable for the administrator to selectively decide what rule-abiding conversation is and isn’t permissible.

Because the thread regularly went off the rails and was a breeding ground for negative feelings, and a big part of that was the useless snark that contributed nothing to the discussion and belittled the thoughts of the target. Not permitting such responses was an attempt to curb the hostility. Note that during the absence of those members who often employed such tactics, the thread was at its most productive and civil.

Deferring to the OP in terms of setting the tone doesn’t mean we’re obligated to let threads devolve into petty squabbles that breed bad blood and infect the rest of the forum. Thread rules are great for giving the OP some control over the direction of their own thread, but they’re superseded by the mods’ judgment in terms of what’s best for the forum.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

I was keeping that inside me for along time and then came a tipping point. Jay making oojason a moderator(btw, Jay should have made that announcement, not Silverwook, announcing new mods is a job for the admin).

Does it really matter who made the announcement? Whether it was Jay, SilverWook or Anchorhead? Either way the announcement made - and it was clear & concise. It also appeared across the top of every section of the site - and no-one else seemingly had an issue with it, that I recall.

In my opinion, that just did not work. Part of that is colored by how it started. I was in a bad mod one weekend in late September of 2017 and had gone a bit too far in posting in the politics thread. Up to that time the rules, at least in the off topic were not being enforced all that strictly. If the politics threads were visible I could point to posts made within weeks of that September that clearly violated the rules and yet no one had done anything about them. It was clear that the rules were not being enforced strictly. Then I made the posts in September of 2017 and oojason stepped in. I didn’t even realize he had been made a moderator. We got into an argument and I got temp banned(at the time I didn’t realize whether the ban was temp or perm because I didn’t realize it was oojason that banned me).

IIRC within a day it was explained to you (via email) that it was a 2 day cool-off period - issued by me. At the time I apologised to you for not realising a banned member on the site could not read the PM sent to you informing you of my decision to reluctantly give you that cooling-off period - and why.

It shortly became clear that oojason was very strictly enforcing the rules. The problem is, until after I got banned, no one had given any warning that the rules were now going to be more strictly enforced. Another thing was that I got temp banned before anything had been done to the likes of Darth Id, General Frevious, and Jediuze(I forget how it is spelled and I can’t see the politic thread to get the right spelling) which were clearly trolls and had behaved much worse than I did. This was a tipping off point for me. It made me think there was a double standard going on. It just further cemented my anger. But I again tried to more on from it.

I disagree with that, somewhat. As stated to you before the rules are there to help make this place a civil one. It’s not a strict application of those rules I undertook - just more of a case of trying to make an effort for that to happen more (be civil with each other), and in doing so making this place more welcoming and a more enjoyable place to be.

Then oojason went nitpicking in the offtopic section and punished people for ridiculous things. He was ruining the fun for a lot of people. I think oojason did a terrible job, I am not the only one that thinks so. It didn’t help that we did not know whether Jay ordered that the rules be more strictly enforced or whether oojason had taken it upon himself to do so.

I think the paragraph posted by me above applies here too - with that asking people to stop telling each other to ‘fuck off’ isn’t a great look for the forum, nor is it very welcoming for new or other members. As explained at the time - it can also lead to misunderstandings and ructions even when said in jest.

If you’re referring to you being asked to reduce the size of your signature… it was a little on the large size, Warb. It took up nearly half the page. Given your liking to reply to each issue/post with an individual post by yourself there were often occasions where members were scrolling through your multiple replies - often searching for one word or one-line answers between. When members asked us to reduce the signature size, we then asked you to reduce it.

If you’re referring to me asking you to stop with the ‘sigh only’ posts - that was also explained at the time in a bid to try and cut down on misunderstandings to when you had previously posed ‘sighs’ and members would get the wrong end of the stick by you meant or what you were referring to - resulting in your original point being lost, forgotten or ignored. In a bid to improve the flow and understanding of the point you were making you were asked give an explanation along with when you sighed. (Other members were asked to stop with the ‘hahahaha’ type posts too - both part of a bid to improve the quality and flow of discussion).

For banning someone who posted up an image regarding paedophilia, bestiality and religious intolerance (and IIRC was also racist?), and who also kicked off at the mods and then re-posted the offending image - I’ve no qualms about my actions there.

Asking for members in the-then Off Topic section to be a little more civil to each other, and trying to improve the flow and quality of posts made… isn’t really nitpicking in my book - nor do I believe it is ‘punishing people for ridiculous things’.

This, and more, was explained to members who had voiced concerns in a Group PM and were under the mistaken impression there were new rules in play (or changes made to them). After Jay and I replied to their concerns highlighting this and answering various questions we didn’t hear anything back - so I imagine those concerns were eased. (kudos to Handman for representing those issues to us, and doing a top job in doing so.)

I felt that he treated me like he was so much better than I and like I was some sort of terrible and despicable person who needed to be taught how to behave by him. He always assumed the worse about my intentions. That even further cemented my anger.

I’m sorry you feel that way - though am at somewhat of a loss on how you came to that conclusion - and am quite surprised by it. The many PMs to me asking for my opinion / thoughts / information / assistance usually started off well - before you often made digs or attacked me in them for not agreeing with you, or not taking the course of action you wish to happen. I’m aware you think I use your words against you and you don’t appreciate it - though if I quote your words back to you it’s only in a bid to address & cover the points made by yourself. Personally I think you’re being a little hyperbolic in your above statement ‘He always assumed the worse about my intentions.’ - and I try to never assume anyone’s intentions before reading what they actually have to say.

That you think I did a terrible job saddens me - though that is your opinion - and you’re most welcome to it.
 

Warbler said:

  1. Inconsistent moderation. Let us face it, how Silverwook moderates compared to how oojason did is night and day. They are entirely different. That is a problem. Moderation, no matter who is doing it needs to be consistent. It is not fair that whether someone is punished for something and/or what the punishment is, depends on who is doing the moderating. Tell your moderators how you want and expect the forum to be moderated and make sure they are all moderating it the same. This would also help in making clear how you expect people to behave.

Yes, we’re different people, though as stated before by the other mods, and Jay, we are not a hive mind. I’ll freely admit I’m the ‘worst’ mod on here and made a fair few mistakes - though it’s a high bar on here (and both love and respect SilverWook, Anchorhead, Zion, Moth3r & Jay and the way they handle(d) things, their commitment and dedication to the site.

That you believe that Jay didn’t converse with us on issues is baffling to me - or that we actually often talked issues through before acting on them at times baffles me too.

I think maybe some people ignore the 1st paragraph in the Rules thread:-

‘Interesting and productive discourse lies in the reasonable space between protecting delicate flowers from the slightest offense and promoting a crude free-for-all. We aim to provide an open and lively discussion forum while keeping things civil, hence the following rules.’

Be civil, be cool & welcoming - that’s pretty much it in how I believe Jay seemingly would like members to ‘behave’ here. Doesn’t seem a bad idea to me, that - seems many agree too given that we’re still here 15 years on, and still going strong.

 

As for your earlier statement in which…

Warbler said:

But why did I react the way I did? Anger. Anger at what has gone on here for years. I have been a forum member here for 15 years. For a large percentage of that, I have felt like dirt under Jay’s feet. I realize I share part of the blame. I know some it goes back to my actions during what I have always called the great forum schism(now I guess it is the first forum schism) back in 2006 with the situation involving Dayv and fanedit.com(now fanedit.org). I do regret some of how I acted and some of what I said. I believe I have said that before. I also deeply regret the times I trolled on here. I admit it was childish and stupid and I am embarrassed about doing so. I do believe that even though I have tried to move on from both, I don’t think Jay has never been able to truly forgive me and it has caused animosity between us for years. But it is not just that.

It has do with years of Jay acting like he preferred the Trolls over legitimate forum members. It used to be trolls could get away with murder on here. I have been the victim of bullying and personal attacks from trolls, with Jay and his mods doing nothing. Finally, they started moderating the off topic section, but my anger at having to put up with the trolls for years while Jay and the mods did nothing, remained. To me at the time I thought all Jay and the mods should do is just perm ban the trolls and leave off topic otherwise un-moderated. I think I now realize it’s a little more complicated than that. I also felt and still feel that Jay has never appreciated the special place that off topic became(note, I did not say perfect). To my point of view, he has always had disdain for the off topic section and consequently, we(those post most often in off topic) have felt like Jay’s dirty ugly step children. That fed into the animosity and my anger. There were also multiple PMs to you and other mods that went unanswered. That too fed into my anger.

Just a quick one, here. I believe you are wrong on how you believe Jay sees you. Despite you publishing private email conversations on the site, harassing me after you were asked to stop contacting me (and on other occasions since - quite ironic given your approval of Rule 6 in the Rules thread), and then giving quite a one-eyed opinion of what had occurred at the time in your ‘Warbler’s Statement’ thread… I’ll let you know Jay was person who asked me to reduce your ‘week off’ for doing so to just a few days, and that he generally speaks well of you in the Admin section. Jay also had no problem with you using the site to start up ‘Warbler’s Place 2 - PM Boogaloo’ type PM threads - despite you not posting on the open forum. And if I may be blunt here, had no problem with you going off a little huffy and announcing you were doing so (IIRC because despite asking me to take action vs three members you believed had done you wrong, yet you refused to explain what they had actually done to you on at least three occasions, before telling me to go ask them what they had done to you. A little help and information was that was being asked Warb - to try and understand why you were apparently upset).

Jay has also gone to significant efforts to reform the Off Topic for the better - giving members here what they they long wished for - a place to discuss media, film, tv, music, art, politics, religion, sport, life etc in a place outside of the old Off Topic section - yet still contain that (now Cantina) section - where members are more free to goofball & mess around - and is more freely moderated than other sections of the site.
 

Also, your claim that multiple PM to the mods went unanswered is not true - I’ve answered every single one of your many PMs to me (bar your last PM reply to me). You may not have liked or agreed with the content - though they were all answered, and I believe engaged with - and given the same respect, thought, care and attention that I gave to everyone else. The reason why I haven’t responded to your last PM reply is that I no longer wish to spend any more time and effort here discussing issues with you when you state that collipso’s open letter (containing ‘go drive yourself into a tree’) is ‘it was a thing of beauty’ and that ‘you loved the open letter’.

My time spent here is limited (though it certainly may not seem like it of late! 😃) due to changes in personal circumstances mean I stepped down as moderator here (something which can take a lot out of a person). Regardless of Jay being involved in a car accident years ago - or whether collipso knew of that or not… it was out of order and a disgusting thing for him to say to anyone (basically to go kill yourself). I’ve nothing further to say to either of you - and will likely only converse with you in the future to correct and give balance to some of your oft repeated one-eyed and sometimes revisionist recollections of previous events here.

Honestly, I never thought there’d be day where I believed this site would be a better place without you - though given your continuing & selective views of me and others (as well as aggressive attitude to me in your PMs), your obvious and clear frustrations with the site & how it’s run, the anger which has manifested itself within you over that time - and also your recent comments & claims - I no longer believe that to be the case.

I wish you well for the future, Warb - though I hope it is away from here, for both the good of the site - and also yourself.
 


Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?