Very true, especially in a situation like this where no one was hurt. Of course this warning situation is a rather unique one what with the warning system being adjusted in the midst of it all, but I think Jayde is being more than fair here on principal alone.
@jack and others
while I respect your intent behind specifically dissecting the points, it is important to understand that proving them factually inaccurate would not solve the purpose of making this forum more friendly towards the community as well as potential visitors. if you look at the crux of the posts, these points suggest the forum is probably less welcoming than it was some 10 years ago. you figuratively stated that certain teenagers are likely to be mature whereas select adult individuals can act like teenagers. this is not at all about one's state of mind; it is merely a fact that games are, indeed played by teenagers the most. unless you're obligated to provide documented statistics to suggest otherwise on a mainstream front, let alone the VI front. moving on to the moderations, I think there is a lot of difference in perception if we compare the people behind the moderations. there might have been a respect/scare factor involved, looking at dark and cx2, who were our oldest moderators. they had been a part of the forum since its early induction. they had probably a whole lot more experience towards audiogaming in general as compared to an average user at that point. there was almost no resistance shown by even the most frequent members of the forum and they mostly agreed on whatever action was being taken. on the contrary, people often kept casually shrugging off dark being the forum overlord with an army of cyberelves and so forth. later, moderators like lukas, aprone, arqmeister and aaron were respected by the members as well. the forum being overpowered and infested by an army of spambots was a greater concern and they had been doing an acceptional job of handling them, along with a bunch of troublemakers who kept popping every now and then. again, I'm not sure what caused the walter situation or how it unfolded, but the damage caused by smoke's blog was far too disastrous for the community. as a consequence, moderators started stepping down as if the forum itself has been obliterated by a huge arial bombardment. I suppose that was the occasion when almost the entire community started questioning them at every step. the blog assault might have shaken the amount of faith on moderators as was placed before. the incident could as well be the turning point because people (no names) started coming out in the open and screaming at the remaining moderators. this topic is not the first time their actions were questioned, but again, the points I raised earlier were raised with the best of intentions as a longstanding member of this forum. at last, there are 2 further questions I would like to be answered.
what is the reason behind the particular moderator (who locked the thread) being questioned by members more than other moderators?
would any other moderator have performed the same set of actions on encountering the concerned topic?
To address post 52 specifically, I'd say that as a past moderator, I'd like to think that, A, given the climate surrounding the situation, B, given the initial poster's history and, C, given the fact that this particular topic did not seem well intended I would have done the following:
1. Supervised the topic very closely.
2. Contacted the team and given them a link to the topic.
3. Requested that if I did make any moderation decision another mod or mods evaluate said decision and given their opinion on how the situation was being handled to that point.
Of course, there is one more variable I'm not factoring in, because this one is actually kind of hard, and that is the emotional involvement with the topic. Had I been just as involved with the overall conversation which, I've gathered thus far has taken place over a span of topics and posts priar to now, I might have initially wanted, at the very least, wanted, to react the way Jayde did. Overall, I'd say his handling of the situation is not my style, but I don't expect it to be, and given his practically apologizing to the community and reopening the previous topic that caused this whole controversial mess... I, as a long time user of this forum, look more to his intent rather than his previous actions. He wants the community to thrive, even if at times he does go about it the wrong way. His success is going to depend on a few things, but the most important right now is that you all, even those of you who have personal beaf with him, give him a good, honest chance. Rather than sitting around questioning his decisions, why don't you flip the coin upside down and question the people who are being moderated?
I said it above and I'll say it again; no one reacts kindly to a moderation warning. It's easy, super easy to lash out when someone gives you one, particularly if you don't agree with the person giving it to you. If I could ask you all to pay attention to one more thing though, it would be a little quote I picked up along the way while reading...
“If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.”
#54 (edited by sid512 2019-04-02 11:13:30)
as I've said again and again, the questions were raised with the best of intentions towards the forum and the community in general. a thriving community is what we need in order to encourage and promote audiogames. now that the topic has been reopened, it would not hurt to respectfully thank Jayde for the consideration and exceptence shown towards our concerns. I hope that such incidents do not occur in future, accept under extreme circumstances.
I would also like to acknowledge the statements of other members who chimed in, without which it would be nearly impossible to convert this topic into a huge wall of opinions
good luck, and may the force be with the audiogaming community