22 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
If they're actually being valuable, should they be treated differently?

I think so. At the least, more effort should be put into figuring out what went wrong, and what can happen to resolve the conflict. There would probably be a reason for somebody to turn from being a useful contributor to somebody pissing everybody off.

Davion said:
And remember, we're first a foremost a Resource site, not a forum. So try to think in that light when making your decision and try to see it from my point of view.

I'm not sure I see them as that different since a forum is a resource like any other. Or, put another way, I view "forum" as a special case of "resource". Personally, I've barely used the files section; I've used the paste bin a couple of times but the near totality of my activity has been in the forums. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use the whole site, but I'm also fairly sure there are people who concentrate on the forums (at least most of the time). Anyhow, I guess what I'm asking is: what difference does it really make? Are you suggesting putting limits on somebody's forum activity but not their file uploading activity? Or something else?

Samson said:
Free speech is a very touchy subject, and I have always preferred a hands off approach. That includes letting the admins have the freedom to get involved in whatever they feel they want to. Including controversial subjects which some find offensive.

What the admins say and do (or let happen) defines the site's personality to a large extent. It's not necessarily a problem, but it's important for everybody involved to realize that. Just because an admin thinks he's speaking for himself, and even if he really is, doesn't mean that people reading will realize that. It might not be right, and certainly isn't fair, but is at least something to be aware of.

Conner said:
While some might find it draconian or what have you, if the admins choose to censer or even censure anyone who posted anything outside their own opinion they'd be entirely within their legal right.

Frankly, I think it is actually extremely important for admins to censure (as opposed to censor) certain activity. If they let something happen, saying nothing, it can easily be construed as tacit agreement. What they choose to speak out against and what they choose to let happen is very important to people's impression of the site's personality.
22 Nov, 2007, Davion wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I think so. At the least, more effort should be put into figuring out what went wrong, and what can happen to resolve the conflict. There would probably be a reason for somebody to turn from being a useful contributor to somebody pissing everybody off.


With that said, I don't think then discussing punishment for violating a policy shouldn't be discussed in this thread. It should either be argued in a case-by-case basis, or the trust the admins enough to weigh out the consequences and pass judgment. So before we get down to the specifics of judgment I think we have to get down how we want the cases handled.

DavidHaley said:
I'm not sure I see them as that different since a forum is a resource like any other. Or, put another way, I view "forum" as a special case of "resource". Personally, I've barely used the files section; I've used the paste bin a couple of times but the near totality of my activity has been in the forums. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use the whole site, but I'm also fairly sure there are people who concentrate on the forums (at least most of the time). Anyhow, I guess what I'm asking is: what difference does it really make? Are you suggesting putting limits on somebody's forum activity but not their file uploading activity? Or something else?


The trolls group currently only limits there interaction with the forums, and comment systems throughout the site. The difference in the forum as a resource, is not all of it is geared towards the resources we want, as a code repository probably 70% of our target content is not in the forums. I view the forums there as more a way to build a community and gather attractions. Really, only using a small section of the site is unfortunate, I'd love to see your mind spill out into the articles section :).

DavidHaley said:
Frankly, I think it is actually extremely important for admins to censure (as opposed to censor) certain activity. If they let something happen, saying nothing, it can easily be construed as tacit agreement. What they choose to speak out against and what they choose to let happen is very important to people's impression of the site's personality.


I think some level of censorship is needed, although it should not be a permanent thing. Censuring them is a must. I feel hiding the posts censors them enough to know that we don't want this content, and posting it wont -just- get you yelled at.
22 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
With that said, I don't think then discussing punishment for violating a policy shouldn't be discussed in this thread. It should either be argued in a case-by-case basis, or the trust the admins enough to weigh out the consequences and pass judgment. So before we get down to the specifics of judgment I think we have to get down how we want the cases handled.

I'm fine with the admins doing whatever they see fit. The site isn't run by democracy after all, and arguably shouldn't be. Asking for people's opinions would be nice but quite optional. (And in some cases, it might be better not to, frankly.)

Davion said:
Really, only using a small section of the site is unfortunate, I'd love to see your mind spill out into the articles section :).

Well, I've read through (many of) them… :smile: Unfortunately, I don't have huge amounts of time to contribute much at the moment… Perhaps at some point? There's definitely some stuff I could write up about learning basic programming… And maybe at some point something about embedding Lua… well, in the future. :wink:
23 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Would such a disclaimer belong in the general forum policies or within the signature of admins or somewhere else altogether? (I'm not sure who's opinions you're trying to allow to be freely expressed without jeapardizing the site's reputation here, since that is the purpose of such a disclaimer.)


That's largely directed at my long held belief that when an Administrator speaks his mind on a site he or she runs, then that attitude can and largely will be viewed as the policy of the Administration, and thus the site.

Or, as DavidHaley put it:


DavidHaley said:
What the admins say and do (or let happen) defines the site's personality to a large extent. It's not necessarily a problem, but it's important for everybody involved to realize that. Just because an admin thinks he's speaking for himself, and even if he really is, doesn't mean that people reading will realize that. It might not be right, and certainly isn't fair, but is at least something to be aware of.


And…

DavidHaley said:
What they choose to speak out against and what they choose to let happen is very important to people's impression of the site's personality.


I've said before, if people log in my MUD and ask what my opinion is on punishing people for botting, and I say I think they should be docked levels, then the people on my MUD will assume that the policy of the MUD is to dock levels for botting, and considering that I am an Administrator and would likely dock levels for botting, then their assumption is pretty spot on.

This started when Asylumius made a comment about not being overly concerned about driving traffic to the site, and that drew a lot of concern from me because as an Administrator, a representative of the site, speaking on his opinion on how the site should be ran, I was worried that it was the policy of the site not to be concerned with how many people visit it.

Generally, when an Admin speaks their opinion on site policy, that generally is an indication of how they intend to run the site, and what the site policy is.

I don't think that disclaimer would really do much. If every time I state an opinion on how I feel my MUD should be ran I add a disclaimer, then why should that make anyone feel any different? If I don't run my MUD in accordance with my opinions on how it should be run, then isn't that a problem?

That said, the disclaimer doesn't bother me. If people feel that it somehow absolves them from representing the site they run, then more power to them. I honestly don't see that changing too many opinions on the issue, and I surely don't see that as a license to act however they like and think it won't reflect poorly on the site. If the Administrators of a site seem unreasonable on a forum, then why would anyone have any reason to think their policies wouldn't be just as unreasonable, or that they would handle themselves in their Administrative capacities in an unreasonable manner?

I'm seriously not trying to be a troll here, but rather trying to illustrate as clearly as I can that many many people will base much of their opinion of a site, a MUD, a forum, etc. off of how the Administrators behave.

Perhaps a better illustration would be… How many people are familiar with 'DarkOz' or 'Ozma' (who runs a DBZ MUD) on TMC? Ok, of those who are familiar with his posting tendencies, without trying his MUD, what conclusions would you reasonably draw about how he runs it based on the way he acts on TMC?
23 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades Kane said:
I'm seriously not trying to be a troll here, but rather trying to illustrate as clearly as I can that many many people will base much of their opinion of a site, a MUD, a forum, etc. off of how the Administrators behave.


Many people would be wrong to make such an assumption as well.

Hades Kane said:
Perhaps a better illustration would be… How many people are familiar with 'DarkOz' or 'Ozma' (who runs a DBZ MUD) on TMC? Ok, of those who are familiar with his posting tendencies, without trying his MUD, what conclusions would you reasonably draw about how he runs it based on the way he acts on TMC?


None. I draw no conclusion of how he runs his MUD based on his asshattery on TMC. I'd have to visit his MUD to find that out.

But if we're going to speculate for a moment, what does it say about the character of people in a dispute when they go invade someone else's forum to argue about it because they know that the person running it allows trolls to run free?
23 Nov, 2007, Avaeryn wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I'm fine with the admins doing whatever they see fit. The site isn't run by democracy after all, and arguably shouldn't be. Asking for people's opinions would be nice but quite optional. (And in some cases, it might be better not to, frankly.)


I agree with DavidHaley here. The admins should run the site as they see fit. This is NOT a democracy. Guidelines and rules for posting should be laid out to give everyone an idea of what can or can NOT be posted. If someone is on the borderline of breaking the rules, let them know via PM. I think most sites do that anyway. It will be difficult to formulate a system for escalation of rule-breaking, but it is important to do so. Punishments should also be shared so that everyone knows where they stand if they break the rules. Many employers do this anyway. For example, if you are late more than X times you would receive a verbal warning. Be late again and it is escalated to a written warning. A final tardy results in termination. Some offenses are serious enough to so result in an immediate termination the first time they occur.

It is also disconcerting that the events taking place on one forum leaks over to another forum. It kind of reminds me of the kid in school who told everyone that the teacher sent him to the office in an attempt to gain support and make the teacher appear to be a horrible person. Those types of actions should not be allowed. Like in Vegas, what happens here should stay here. That situation should definitely be addressed in any guidelines or rules drafted by the administration of MudBytes.

Not everyone will act as they should in every situation. We don't always exercise the best judgment and are guided by our emotions, not rational thinking. Again another reason to guide the adoption of more detailed guidelines and rules for posting.

It isn't an easy situation. Finding the right set of rules or guidelines will not be easy either.
23 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about how Ozma runs his MUD without being there. I, personally, act differently on Forums not directly related to my MUD and on my MUD and MUD's Forums.
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Hades Kane said:
I'm seriously not trying to be a troll here, but rather trying to illustrate as clearly as I can that many many people will base much of their opinion of a site, a MUD, a forum, etc. off of how the Administrators behave.


Many people would be wrong to make such an assumption as well.


In a sense, that doesn't really matter. They will make the assumptions. Sometimes they would be correct, other times they wouldn't be.

Samson said:
Hades Kane said:
Perhaps a better illustration would be… How many people are familiar with 'DarkOz' or 'Ozma' (who runs a DBZ MUD) on TMC? Ok, of those who are familiar with his posting tendencies, without trying his MUD, what conclusions would you reasonably draw about how he runs it based on the way he acts on TMC?


None. I draw no conclusion of how he runs his MUD based on his asshattery on TMC. I'd have to visit his MUD to find that out.


I think it's fair game that if somebody is an "asshat" you wouldn't really want to have dealings with them elsewhere. Maybe you can't conclude whether or not the game is set up well, but it seems fair to assume that, with rather high probably, that you wouldn't enjoy interacting with the person elsewhere.
24 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I think it's fair game that if somebody is an "asshat" you wouldn't really want to have dealings with them elsewhere.


That's an entirely different subject though than making assumptions about how they run the MUD when all you have to go by is their attitude on a forum. I've seen countless instances of people on forums behaving like jerks but being entirely different when you encounter them away from the mob.
24 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Quote
I think it's fair game that if somebody is an "asshat" you wouldn't really want to have dealings with them elsewhere.


That's an entirely different subject though than making assumptions about how they run the MUD when all you have to go by is their attitude on a forum. I've seen countless instances of people on forums behaving like jerks but being entirely different when you encounter them away from the mob.


Interestingly, I've found the converse to be true as well. I've known people who were perfectly civil on public forums, but seemingly unbalanced, caustic sociopaths within their own territory (e.g., MUDs they ran, or other sites for which they were personally responsible.) For my own part, I tend to try to ignore inflated egos and belligerent personal opinion on public discussion sites, and I hope that my own fallibility can be overlooked as well. It's only natural that things will get heated now and then or that egos will clash, but I'm really only interested in the relevant information or issues that effect my participation. If someone has facts or a well-argued opinion that's relevant to the discussion, then I'll make every effort to listen to them and try to take away something position from the discussion, regardless of whether or not they're being a jackass.

If, on the other hand, they have nothing relevant to offer, then I'll likely ignore them, regardless of whether they're being civil or not. Hmm. I suppose that means I agree with both of you. :thinking:
24 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
This comes back around to 'punishment suiting the crime'. Also what has to be taken into account is how valuable the person is to the site. If they're just being annoying, and they've done nothing but be annoying, pfft. They can screw off. If they're actually being valuable, should they be treated differently? I ask this because so many people have voiced there concerns about the health of the site. I think skirting this issue and saying "everyone is treated equal" is just not ideal. If such is the case, setting a punishment for a specific crime is going to be extremely difficult, and hard to follow guidelines for. And remember, we're first a foremost a Resource site, not a forum. So try to think in that light when making your decision and try to see it from my point of view.

I've left this thread and given myself a day or two to think on the matter, and frankly, this statement still really bothers me. Now, please try to understand, I not only say it often, but was even the first to come forward and point out that the forum is not, and should not be, a democracy and that it's not subject to the first amendment (free speech). But are we, at a site that was founded expressly on the idea that we felt Kyndig had gone too far, going to take Kyndig's example and Orson Wells' fears combined to establish an "Animal Farm" environment here where "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others"? :sad:

Much to my shock and dismay, I find that when I do return it's to find today's fiasco with the upload rules change. Thankfully, I never agreed to any terms as crazy as what were proposed today so should the admins decide to enact such rules they would not apply to my previous submissions. :mad:

Avaeryn said:
It is also disconcerting that the events taking place on one forum leaks over to another forum. It kind of reminds me of the kid in school who told everyone that the teacher sent him to the office in an attempt to gain support and make the teacher appear to be a horrible person. Those types of actions should not be allowed. Like in Vegas, what happens here should stay here. That situation should definitely be addressed in any guidelines or rules drafted by the administration of MudBytes.

This also bothers me very much too. While I understand that Crat took this to TMC and Samson felt personally obligated to defend himself there, the rest of the MudBytes administration really shouldn't be part of that nonsense over there, especially since what I've been seeing there is almost worse than seeing total silence from them. It's appeared as though the remaining admin staff have decided to make Samson a scapegoat to save face… I really hope that isn't the case, but it sure has looked that way. :(

As Hades pointed out, I'm not trying to troll here. I'm one of the people who can honestly say that I was here from the very beginning (check my join date to the left of this post if you question that, I beat out a couple of our remaining admins) and have done as much as I possibly can to contribute to this site from having left a "mark" (in some cases a pretty significant one) on every publicly visible part of this site to even advertising the site on several sites of my own and a couple that aren't even my own. But considering all of the above, I am very worried currently about the direction things are taking and the potential longevity of a site that I have tried so hard to support in the past. :sad:

Davion, Asylumius (sp?), Kiasyn, please understand that given the way things have been over the last week, you can count on my not contributing any new content besides a bit of forum responses and referring no one new to this site until I can see where things are going. If they're going as badly as thing appear so far, also please don't be too shocked when my demand comes to remove my past contributions either. This is absolutely not intended as a threat, it is expressely just a deep felt statement of disappointment from someone who can honestly say they have contributed plenty to this site. I will not take this to PMs, as I have nothing else to say. All of you know lots of ways to reach me if you have questions, but basically it comes down to my desire to see MudBytes some day achieve the potential I had envisioned for it and maybe even exceed that versus my unwillingness to associate myself with certain behaviours/attitudes that I'm afraid I may very well be seeing starting to surface here. As I previously stated, this site was expressly created to combat the stupidity that Kyndig had come to represent to a number of us (those of you who were involved will remember that I was very actively involved in the creation and brainstorming about this site myself and had even initially offered to host it) and I am deeply ashamed to say that it appears that the remaining administration is looming dangerously close to some of the same behaviours and attitudes that so angered us coming from Kyndig. :redface:

DavidHaley said:
Samson said:
Hades Kane said:
I'm seriously not trying to be a troll here, but rather trying to illustrate as clearly as I can that many many people will base much of their opinion of a site, a MUD, a forum, etc. off of how the Administrators behave.

Many people would be wrong to make such an assumption as well.

In a sense, that doesn't really matter. They will make the assumptions. Sometimes they would be correct, other times they wouldn't be.

Guys, pay attention here, seriously. This is dead on. Yes, based on the (in)actions and statements (or lack there of) from the administrative staff of a site, people will make assumptions about the site itself as well as the administrative team and even the site's general members. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether those newly formed opinions are correct/valid/good/bad/whatever, once they are formed, they are going to be next to impossible to change, all too often in life we just don't get second chances on making that first impression. To be brutally honest, even throwing in a lovely disclaimer about opinions not being shared and so forth really won't change the fact that someone just heard/read you spewing some crap they didn't want to and they WILL turn around and assume (even if your disclaimer protects you from lawsuit over it) that this IS the opinions of the site, staff, & members. :sad:

We've had quite a few locked threads lately, and I really hope this won't be the post that gets this one locked, but please consider what I'm saying here. You guys know that I'm rarely outspoken about crap like this, and frankly, I even more rarely waive that "pull my stuff" banner. All I ask is that you think about what has happened over the last week, as objectively as you can, and consider why I might be saying what I'm saying and why I might be worried about the site's future without jumping to some assinine conclusion regarding my loyalty to Samson (which you all ought to already know isn't strong enough for me to give up something I believe in over), and, finally, start to think about what you can do to make this site better instead of trying to tear it inside-out and turn it into a new Mud Magic. :sad:
24 Nov, 2007, Avaeryn wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Conner, I am very saddened to hear your position, but understand it. I hope for everyone concerned that this does not happen. It would be sad to see this site spiral out of control and become like so many have in the past. Hopefully the admins can come to a middle ground of sorts where posting guidelines and/or rules are concerned.

Conner said:
Avaeryn said:
It is also disconcerting that the events taking place on one forum leaks over to another forum. It kind of reminds me of the kid in school who told everyone that the teacher sent him to the office in an attempt to gain support and make the teacher appear to be a horrible person. Those types of actions should not be allowed. Like in Vegas, what happens here should stay here. That situation should definitely be addressed in any guidelines or rules drafted by the administration of MudBytes.


This also bothers me very much too. While I understand that Crat took this to TMC and Samson felt personally obligated to defend himself there, the rest of the MudBytes administration really shouldn't be part of that nonsense over there, especially since what I've been seeing there is almost worse than seeing total silence from them. It's appeared as though the remaining admin staff have decided to make Samson a scapegoat to save face… I really hope that isn't the case, but it sure has looked that way. :(

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to troll either, as a few of the other posters have stated. As so many of us know appearances can make a lasting impression that far outweighs anything else. Inactivity or inaction can sometimes say more than actions will/do. Any admin/owner should be fully involved in their own site, including posting and enforcement of rules, guidelines and policies. So many situations spiral out of control needlessly when action early on could have prevented the out-of-control spiral. Kind of like the kids bouncing on the bed giggling uproariously. Baby sitter says nothing. A few minutes later one falls off and bumps his or her head. Had the baby sitter said something earlier this might not have (and probably would not have) happened. Simplistic, but you get the point.


It's going to be a tough go of it. We'll have to see what happens from here on out.
24 Nov, 2007, Asylumius wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
conner said:
This also bothers me very much too. While I understand that Crat took this to TMC and Samson felt personally obligated to defend himself there, the rest of the MudBytes administration really shouldn't be part of that nonsense over there, especially since what I've been seeing there is almost worse than seeing total silence from them. It's appeared as though the remaining admin staff have decided to make Samson a scapegoat to save face… I really hope that isn't the case, but it sure has looked that way. :(


I offered my $.02 here on MudBytes, but I haven't posted on TMC in at least a couple years. If I still have an account there, I don't know about it. For that reason, and also to avoid fueling the fire, I didn't follow this whole thing over to TMC.

A lot of this ordeal stems from personal problems that, like you said, aren't things that the rest of us feel we need to wedge ourselves in the middle of. Once Crat's ability to post was revoked, the issues died down pretty quickly on MudBytes and was taken up again on TMC. At this point, the issue came down to two things: One, Cratylus and Samson arguing on TMC (with random people offering their opinion and/or support), and Two, some "investigating" regarding some screenshots and soap-opera-like shit.

Nobody wanted to make Samson a scapegoat. I think any harm done to Samson was the result of the personal feuds between him and Cratylus (and a few select others) and the outcome of our having looked into some of Cratylus' claims.

To everyone, as always, this thread will be locked if it turns into a rehash of recent events and not a civil discussion on how we can improve our rules. Say what you want, cry if you like, posts need to stay on topic or they will be ended. If you feel this whole catastrophe begs more discussion, fine, do it elsewhere, but I think most of the people involved have agreed they would rather drop it.
24 Nov, 2007, Avaeryn wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Quote
A few simple rules:

1. No spamming, trolling, or flaming allowed. This forum is for civil posters only. If you can't find a decent way to say it, then don't say it.

2. No harrasment. Racial, sexual, or otherwise. Complaints will be investigated. Violators posts will be deleted and violators potentially banned.

3. No posting of copyrighted content unless you own the copyright. This includes, but is not limited to, avatars, stories, game content, code, and areas.

4. No signature or profile links to sites belonging to known violators/code thieves/etc.

5. If all else fails, use common sense. If it seems wrong, don't do it.


Those rules should be simple enough, but it seems there need to be specific examples laid out so everyone knows exactly where they stand regarding posting to the forum.

Samson said:
I'll start off by listing general things I'm guessing we need at this point:

The Obvious

* No hate speech. Racism, sexism, degrading speech about religions and such.
* No harassment. Race, gender, creed, etc.
* No promotion of illegal activities. IE: Warez downloads, bomb manuals, child pornography, "how to" crime instructions, that sort of thing.
* No porn. We're a PG site.
* No libelous posts. Accusations of any kind had better be backed up with irrefutable evidence.
* No spam. Covering pretty much anything dealing with unsolicited advertising. Stuff you normally see from bots.
* No submission of copyrighted material you don't own without permission.
* No sig/profile/post links to known copyright violators, code thieves, etc.

The not so obvious would include regulations on offensive material, flaming, trolling, antagonizing the staff for your own amusement, keeping things civil, etc. The kind of enforcement actions that generally go hand in hand with charges of censorship being leveled at the administration for daring to enforce it.

Since it's been stated already that people want offensive material regulated, I'm not expecting too much disagreement with drafting a new set of more specific rules. Also keep in mind that just because it's not enumerated in the rules doesn't mean we won't retain the right to deal with it anyway. We're all human, and we all have imperfect judgment. So situations are bound to arise from time to time that don't fit neatly into the printed words.


The adoption of these new rules suggested by Samson should make it easier on all concerned. Rules should help everyone know where they stand, what they can or can NOT post. I'd also like to see examples in some situations, which could be easily created or linked to existing forum posts that veer into any improper areas. Administration could also draft a set of rules/guidelines as a proposal and put said proposal in a poll so each individual rule could be commented on and discussed by members. That might help guide adoption of rules/guidelines.

Sorry if my earlier post veered into the realm of bad taste and/or judgment. That was not my intention. Hopefully this post will clarify my intention that perhaps the rules/guidelines do need to be adjusted. In closing, I would also encourage ALL administrators to be very actively involved in reading each and everyl forum posts so that any future problems may be dealt with swiftly before things get out of hand. Also if the rules DO change, consider instituting an electronic signature screen for each and every MudBytes member so they must read and agree to the rules to continue. That way they have the option to agree and be able to post to the forum, disagree and contribute in other ways but be a lurker of the forum, or choose not to participate and remain a lurker only.
24 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
http://www.smaugmuds.org/index.php?a=for...

The link leads to the new forum rules being instituted on the SmaugFUSS site. They may or may not work here.

http://www.smaugmuds.org/index.php?a=upl...

This leads to the new upload rules being instituted, which again may or may not work here.
24 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
I see no problem with the proposed new rules, as long as there is a more explicit clarification on the otherwise vague terms of "trolling" and "flaming." I think I already posted that in this topic, so I won't elaborate for fear of being needlessly repetitive (which I admit to having that tendency :p ).
24 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Any suggestions on specific clarifications? I mean, we all tend to know when we see it but quantifying it might be difficult.
24 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
conner said:
This also bothers me very much too. While I understand that Crat took this to TMC and Samson felt personally obligated to defend himself there, the rest of the MudBytes administration really shouldn't be part of that nonsense over there, especially since what I've been seeing there is almost worse than seeing total silence from them. It's appeared as though the remaining admin staff have decided to make Samson a scapegoat to save face… I really hope that isn't the case, but it sure has looked that way. :(

I offered my $.02 here on MudBytes, but I haven't posted on TMC in at least a couple years. If I still have an account there, I don't know about it. For that reason, and also to avoid fueling the fire, I didn't follow this whole thing over to TMC.

Sorry, this is a case of including you as part of the collective because at least one of the admins did get involved so it reflects on all of you, it's not personal, but it is how others percieve things.

Asylumius said:
A lot of this ordeal stems from personal problems that, like you said, aren't things that the rest of us feel we need to wedge ourselves in the middle of. Once Crat's ability to post was revoked, the issues died down pretty quickly on MudBytes and was taken up again on TMC. At this point, the issue came down to two things: One, Cratylus and Samson arguing on TMC (with random people offering their opinion and/or support), and Two, some "investigating" regarding some screenshots and soap-opera-like shit.

Nobody wanted to make Samson a scapegoat. I think any harm done to Samson was the result of the personal feuds between him and Cratylus (and a few select others) and the outcome of our having looked into some of Cratylus' claims.

I don't know what truth there is or isn't to any of that, and I doubt most of us ever will, but I will definitely credit you for crafty phrasing so that it sounds very nice and gives the immediate impression that our remaining admin team is just doing all they can for the benefit of the site and then moving on. While I do see some additional undertones, I'll hope for the best and give you the benefit of the doubt that you, as a team, are just doing all that you can for the benefit of the site and then moving on.

Asylumius said:
To everyone, as always, this thread will be locked if it turns into a rehash of recent events and not a civil discussion on how we can improve our rules. Say what you want, cry if you like, posts need to stay on topic or they will be ended. If you feel this whole catastrophe begs more discussion, fine, do it elsewhere, but I think most of the people involved have agreed they would rather drop it.

*Applauds* If nothing else comes out of this, Asylumius has made a beautiful very admin-like statement here. This is what I expect of forum admins, when push comes to shove threads that need to be locked/deleted and posts that need to be edited/deleted and so forth are just done. Administrative warnings are issued as needed, issues are discussed as appropriate, but it's the admin's decision that's final in the end. With that, by all means, let's return to the topic at hand and see how things play out in the end.

Avaeryn said:
I'd also like to see examples in some situations, which could be easily created or linked to existing forum posts that veer into any improper areas. Administration could also draft a set of rules/guidelines as a proposal and put said proposal in a poll so each individual rule could be commented on and discussed by members. That might help guide adoption of rules/guidelines.

Examples can be nice, but do we really need an example of what not to do for each type of potential infraction?

They could, but ultimately it's up to the admin team to decide what rules they want to set, it's really not a democratic type of thing. The fact that they've opened this up for input is magnanimous of them and clearly helps to show that they're concerned about making sweeping/drastic changes to the rules that could send people away rather than improve the place, but I don't see a need for us to have a poll and discussion about each potential rule or rule change. After all, some of them I really think we're all in agreement just don't need to be changed, for example, whether phrased as
Samson said:
3. No posting of copyrighted content unless you own the copyright. This includes, but is not limited to, avatars, stories, game content, code, and areas.

4. No signature or profile links to sites belonging to known violators/code thieves/etc.
or phrased as
Samson said:
* No submission of copyrighted material you don't own without permission.
* No sig/profile/post links to known copyright violators, code thieves, etc.
I really don't see a lot of difference there and either way, I've yet to see anyone have an issue with those two rules.

Avaeryn said:
In closing, I would also encourage ALL administrators to be very actively involved in reading each and everyl forum posts so that any future problems may be dealt with swiftly before things get out of hand.

While this is surely good advice for an admin of any forum, I think that on MudBytes one of the reasons we so frequently saw Samson's presence and so rarely saw Asylumius's presence, for example, is because they'd a behind the scenes set of roles established. For example, Asylumius primarily handled graphics while Samson primarily handled PR and Davion and Kiasyn both primarily worked with coding modifications to the QSFP underpinnings, or something roughly like that (I know it was far more involved than just that, but it's really not important to the point), so there was no reason for most of us to ever see Asylumius posting whereas it was vital that Samson be seen all the time. I'm not sure that in Samson's absence that changes, or should change, quite as much as some of us might think.

Avaeryn said:
Also if the rules DO change, consider instituting an electronic signature screen for each and every MudBytes member so they must read and agree to the rules to continue. That way they have the option to agree and be able to post to the forum, disagree and contribute in other ways but be a lurker of the forum, or choose not to participate and remain a lurker only.

Actually, there already is one, you agreed to it as did I and everyone else who has an account here, but it only hit each of us on account creation, which means changes to the rules we can really only show our acceptance of via continued site usage. :shrug:

Hades_Kane said:
I see no problem with the proposed new rules, as long as there is a more explicit clarification on the otherwise vague terms of "trolling" and "flaming." I think I already posted that in this topic, so I won't elaborate for fear of being needlessly repetitive (which I admit to having that tendency :p ).

That's ok, I've already posted that I think a couple of the new rules, in their obvious effort at clarification, become a bit redundant too. :wink:
But I agree, it can't possibly hurt to have an official clarification of what constitutes "trolling" and "flaming" if only because so many of us probably already have our own ideas what those terms mean and they may very well not be the same thing as what our admin team feels they mean.
24 Nov, 2007, Avaeryn wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Avaeryn said:
I'd also like to see examples in some situations, which could be easily created or linked to existing forum posts that veer into any improper areas. Administration could also draft a set of rules/guidelines as a proposal and put said proposal in a poll so each individual rule could be commented on and discussed by members. That might help guide adoption of rules/guidelines.

Examples can be nice, but do we really need an example of what not to do for each type of potential infraction?

They could, but ultimately it's up to the admin team to decide what rules they want to set, it's really not a democratic type of thing. The fact that they've opened this up for input is magnanimous of them and clearly helps to show that they're concerned about making sweeping/drastic changes to the rules that could send people away rather than improve the place, but I don't see a need for us to have a poll and discussion about each potential rule or rule change. After all, some of them I really think we're all in agreement just don't need to be changed, for example, whether phrased as
Samson said:
3. No posting of copyrighted content unless you own the copyright. This includes, but is not limited to, avatars, stories, game content, code, and areas.

4. No signature or profile links to sites belonging to known violators/code thieves/etc.
or phrased as
Samson said:
* No submission of copyrighted material you don't own without permission.
* No sig/profile/post links to known copyright violators, code thieves, etc.
I really don't see a lot of difference there and either way, I've yet to see anyone have an issue with those two rules.


Some people need to be whapped up side the head to see reason. Others need big, blinking neon signs to know what is expected of them. In the end the decision with the rules must be made by the admins of MudBytes. I agree that it is very nice of them to ask for feedback on any rule changes. Not a lot of places do that so it certainly is appreciated. I also reviewed the rules Samson posted links to for the SmaugFUSS site. To the point and covered almost every situation that might arise. I also like that he (Samson) added the disclaimer at the end:
Quote
The administration reserves the right to make judgments on any material posted that does not clearly fall within one of these rules but is deemed to be offensive or falls outside the confines of general decency. Questions about this policy should be raised in private with the site administrators.

This should cover all the bases. The administration can then exercise their own personal judgment on each situation and address it accordingly.

Conner said:
Avaeryn said:
In closing, I would also encourage ALL administrators to be very actively involved in reading each and everyl forum posts so that any future problems may be dealt with swiftly before things get out of hand.

While this is surely good advice for an admin of any forum, I think that on MudBytes one of the reasons we so frequently saw Samson's presence and so rarely saw Asylumius's presence, for example, is because they'd a behind the scenes set of roles established. For example, Asylumius primarily handled graphics while Samson primarily handled PR and Davion and Kiasyn both primarily worked with coding modifications to the QSFP underpinnings, or something roughly like that (I know it was far more involved than just that, but it's really not important to the point), so there was no reason for most of us to ever see Asylumius posting whereas it was vital that Samson be seen all the time. I'm not sure that in Samson's absence that changes, or should change, quite as much as some of us might think.

I see your point there, Conner. I would still encourage problems being addressed quickly to prevent things getting out of control. How each situation is handled is best determined by the admins. The homeostasis of the MudBytes site has been disturbed by Samson leaving. I am sure it will quickly return to normal in time.

Conner said:
Avaeryn said:
Also if the rules DO change, consider instituting an electronic signature screen for each and every MudBytes member so they must read and agree to the rules to continue. That way they have the option to agree and be able to post to the forum, disagree and contribute in other ways but be a lurker of the forum, or choose not to participate and remain a lurker only.

Actually, there already is one, you agreed to it as did I and everyone else who has an account here, but it only hit each of us on account creation, which means changes to the rules we can really only show our acceptance of via continued site usage. :shrug:

Again, there is always someone who needs the bright, blinking neon sign. It was merely a suggestion to ensure each user has been notified of changes. Many people don't make a habit of reviewing the rules/policies/guidelines for changes. If the admins at MudBytes notify us, fine, if not that's fine as well. We should all know to behave like ladies and gentlemen anyway :tongue:

Conner said:
Hades_Kane said:
I see no problem with the proposed new rules, as long as there is a more explicit clarification on the otherwise vague terms of "trolling" and "flaming." I think I already posted that in this topic, so I won't elaborate for fear of being needlessly repetitive (which I admit to having that tendency :p ).

That's ok, I've already posted that I think a couple of the new rules, in their obvious effort at clarification, become a bit redundant too. :wink:
But I agree, it can't possibly hurt to have an official clarification of what constitutes "trolling" and "flaming" if only because so many of us probably already have our own ideas what those terms mean and they may very well not be the same thing as what our admin team feels they mean.


Clarification was what I should have said. Maybe that's what I should have said instead of asking for examples. Clarify so we all stand on even footing.

Please pardon any typos I have made in this post. Typing with a hand in a cast is not the easiest thing to do, so please be gentle :redface:
24 Nov, 2007, Dragona wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Avaeryn said:
I see your point there, Conner. I would still encourage problems being addressed quickly to prevent things getting out of control. How each situation is handled is best determined by the admins. The homeostasis of the MudBytes site has been disturbed by Samson leaving. I am sure it will quickly return to normal in time.


Sorry but MudBytes will never be the same again with Samson gone. Cause along with him went many others and still others area talking about leaving. :sigh:
Unfortunately I remember something very similar happening like this not long ago, which in turn brought MudBytes about… I really hate to see it go this way :sad:

Sorry bout the cast, I know all to well how it is to try to do thinks one handed… When I first got together with conner I had to have wrist surgery on my right hand (right-handed) and it was quite a challenge to do somethings
40.0/64