06 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Cratylus has been regularly abusive to the IMC admins, and there is no reason to be surprised by their reaction.


I like Cratylus. I don't want to see him banned. So I'm hoping both sides can gives some concessions here. And your above statement is true. Cratylus has been abusive to the mudbytes admins, but to me this reaction is troublesome. It's highly likely that they would not have had the same reaction to a rather docile comment that another user made. Sure, he was pretty direct when he commented on their competence level. Read: not much tact. However, I guarantee had he said the same thing to another user he would not have been banned. That being said, Cratylus has been abusive to them. I've even had an IMC user scold me for not defending Davion in these situations. So I'll say what I said to that person at that time. Davion tends to roll with the punches pretty well. I didn't think it bothered him that much, and I'm sure if Crat thought it bothered him that much he probably wouldn't make such a game of it. Kiasyn, on the other hand, doesn't seem to take it as well. And this does come off like a knee jerk reaction. If you guys didn't like what was going on and you didn't want to stir up trouble, you should have first asked, later warned, and finally after your other attempts were well documented and duly defined in the rules, and only then (hopefully with reluctance) should you have taken this action. I don't see the reluctance. Frankly, all I see is righteous indignation from both sides.
07 Jun, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
You suggest that the MudBytes admin have been corrupted by power? I suggest the opposite - they've tried so hard to avoid stepping on toes that a few people have started pushing to see just how much they can get away with. It's like watching teenagers trying to test the rules to see how much freedom their parents will give them.

I'm afraid I completely disagree. :smile:

My perception is that the cause and effect are the other way round: the more heavy-handed and arbitrary the administration and moderation policy becomes, the more p*ssed off the users become, and the more they begin to deliberately provoke the authorities they've come to resent.

Things on Mudbytes are much, much better now than they were a year or two back. There are a number of reasons for this - Samson's stepping down as an admin, the appointment of moderators, etc. - but they all ultimately come down to the fact that moderation is now much less arbitrary, less emotional, and less personal than it once was. It used to be the case that daring to question a moderation decision (taken by an admin) was grounds for disciplinary action; now we actually have a forum dedicated to discussing moderation decisions, and it's quite common for moderation decisions to be reversed as a result of the discussion - much healthier. I think the community has responded positively to the changes as a whole, and there's been a big improvement in tone.

There's still a lot to work through - moderation policy is not determined entirely in advance, to some extent it is refined as we go along; this is (I think) a healthy and desirable process, and has resulted in some good decisions. (An example would be requiring moderators to post official warnings in bold yellow text to make it clear when they are speaking personally and when they are speaking in an official capacity). This process requires discussion - such discussion is often quite civilised.

The one thing which does immediately cause tempers to flare, of course, is any suggestion of sliding back to the "bad old days"; users remember what it was like back then, very much don't want to return to that, and have a strong emotional reaction when anything happens which suggests we might.

Maybe some people do have an unnecessarily adversarial attitude towards the Powers That Be; I think some feel that it was only by means of what amounted to a campaign of civil disobedience that we actually got the rules changed in the way that they needed to be; there is also a feeling that The Management need to be constantly and publically held to account, and that if you allow them to get away with minor abuses this will encourage them to keep committing them. I don't really agree with that stance, but I do understand it and, to an extent, sympathise with it.
07 Jun, 2010, Mudder wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with KaVir.

As far as spotlight and criticism goes, there are some users here that are definitely in the spotlight and with the way they've held themselves have earned my utmost respect. The users that can keep things from being overly personal and keep the conversation going in a positive direction get almost zero abuse from others.

I've had problems with Crat in the past and he and I have made up since then (I like him now) but honestly if I were an Admin I probably would have dealt with it the same way. Perhaps I would have made it more clear first, but one cannot blame the decision in itself.
07 Jun, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
I've had problems with Crat in the past and he and I have made up since then (I like him now) but honestly if I were an Admin I probably would have dealt with it the same way. Perhaps I would have made it more clear first, but one cannot blame the decision in itself.


Crat is basically the grumpy old man of the mud world, abrasive and brash when you first meet him. It's hard not to like the old codger, and often his bad points fall away under the humour-filled banter. When he has no bone to pick he's harmless, but will pick at a bone until you fix it if he has. If you don't like Crat, there's not much you can do about him, if you smite him in half lots of little Crats will appear and wiggle around your authority and plant themselves elsewhere to usurp you from afar. That said, his presence on any forum doesn't seem to be to solely challenge authority, but stand up to what he sees as stupidity. Stupidity annoys him, and I think I can identify with that.

This ban is definitely crass stupidity, and a total over reaction. I think personally Kaisyn must have some kind of stick up his ass, or at least did at the time. If he keeps reacting like this to criticism we could end up with another Samson. And we don't need another Samson thx..
07 Jun, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Crat is basically the grumpy old man of the mud world


That'd be Osiris, I think. But he probably had a heart attack during some deep… uhh… role play.
07 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
flumpy said:
<hyperbole redacted> If he keeps reacting like this to criticism we could end up with another Samson. And we don't need another Samson thx..

Quoted to underscore the concern hiding behind the drama.
07 Jun, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
flumpy said:
<hyperbole redacted> If he keeps reacting like this to criticism we could end up with another Samson. And we don't need another Samson thx..

Quoted to underscore the concern hiding behind the drama.


You'll be invoking Godwin's law on me next..
07 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Nah. The discussion's already been lost due to a previous invocation of that law.
Tyche said:
Runter said:
What's rude about 3 stooges join the nazi party? :)


Well I'm not really hip to the current terminology used on MudBytes. I would guess that "stooges" would translate to "stupid cunts" and "nazis" would translate to "fascist cocksuckers" in current MudBytes lingo. I'm not really sure about it though. And whether it is acceptable or not depends solely on the target of the commentary. The more important concept is their overt assurance that they will continue to act in an objectively disordered manner.

:lol:
13 Jun, 2010, Famine wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Katiara said:
Koron said:
Meh. This premise boils down to "You're special so you should be able to put up with more abuse" and I don't like that. I wouldn't be willing to put up with any more abuse if I were in their shoes. If we're truly a community, I expect to be treated like a member of the community; the fact that I pay the bills wouldn't change my stance on this.


You may not like it but this is the way the world works. This is the same reason an actor or politician can't sue for libel most of the time. I suggest you never run for any kind of office.

Admins are not normal members, whether they like it or not. Paying the bills is not the same as being an administrator. I won't say that admins should have to like putting up with abuse (and neither was Kat saying this), but I agree with her that being in the spotlight means getting the good and the bad, and that's pretty much how things are.

But the point Kat was making was that you need to learn to welcome constructive criticism, and shrug off non-constructive criticism. Purging people who criticize you is not the most efficient way of convincing people that you are beyond criticism.


Indeed very true, but you also have rules to regulate as well. The point of being constructive is also to enforce it. Though, that does not mean you should push away all criticism (constructive or deconstructive). It just means you should highlight the punishment is justified in order to help reform users for the good of the community (i.e.: make them better community members in the long term). I think the issue falls more on the severity of the punishment on more deconstructive criticism versus how you accept with constructive criticism. It's a delicate situation no matter how you spearhead it.

There is no easy road to take when you pitched on the corner trying to find the best way home. :biggrin:
13 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
I think the issue falls more on the severity of the punishment on more deconstructive criticism versus how you accept with constructive criticism.


I concur with your implied deprecation of the deconstructionist approach to criticism. It's fine for French polymaths, but really, come on.

Famine said:
It's a delicate situation no matter how you spearhead it.


Delicate perhaps, in this case quite unsubtle, however.

While I appreciate the effort to apply some general words of wisdom, this thread has some very specific
concerns and the potential for specifically addressing them. Since the principals seem to be taking
a breather from it, I suggest we leave it alone unless we have something truly new to contribute.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Jun, 2010, Erok wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Some forums solve this problem by being self moderating through the use of up/down voting on threads. If the down votes reach a specified threshold, the thread is automatically closed. This means moderators rarely need to get involved.

I'm not sure it would work well here though, given that the community is quite small, but it could be tested over a trial period to see for sure.
20.0/31