2018-10-16 20:42:57

grryfindore wrote:

I agree with with what you say, at least that part. But then again your blog post and the way its written isn't exactly subjective and comes at an awfully convinent time, no?

No...as I have said here over and over, and as I say in the blog post over and over it has my opinions. It is not 100% objective, it is subjective. I don't know why this is being brought up over and over when it is said multiple times in multiple places now. It is quite easy to see where my opinion slips and where there is no opinion, or when I place the opinion of a moderator which I talked to.
Also as for you saying it comes at a very convenient time, again you are making quite large jumps of faith to say something which is false. I had no idea dark was currently gone, and it had no effect on my posting. I originally planned on posting on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, that was simply how long I thought it would take me to finish the post. After finishing everything sooner including feedback from prerelease readers I decided to post it on Monday. You seem to be making these huge jumps from one thing to another, again all in the attempt to discredit mee as the author. This is your decision but it is quite obvious for everyone reading this thread.

   

grryfindore wrote:

I beg to differ when it comes to the no politics involved, bah.

It would be rather  hard to be involved with politics of a place if one does not take part in the politics of that place let alone if one is not an active member of that place and its community. This makes it very difficult for me to understand how I am playing politics when by my own conscious decision I am not a part of the ag.net community. Might I also add that is a past decision I made based on the community, not on the moderation of the forums. As far as I can remember, and without going back and searching I have never had a personal encounter either directly or indirectly with the moderation here.

grryfindore wrote:

For example, the outcry against Ironcross's ban by a certain section of the forums. It was truely hard for me to understand, how people'd call that ban unfare, when multiple wornings were issued, oh and the posts and topics you talk of, they are right there for people to see how offencive and insulting that guy was being to people, deserved or not.

May I remind you that even dark said Ironcross was not banned for what he said in that topic, it was not until after the ban was in place that Dark said Ironcross was banned for what he said. I am not defending or sticking up for Ironcross, I thought I made that very clear. The issue was someone no matter who being banned for something they did not say, which was the reason given by dark. IF you think me and Ironcross are friends or something then you are very mistaken, I would estimate that 95% of our past interactions have been blog related, meaning to do with his posts on the BSG Blog. I believe I have talked him via voice exactly once, and that was in a group setting on Team Talk. It does not matter who this happened to, it is the fact that it happened.

grryfindore wrote:

My Comment as regards people having their own thoughts, being able to actually! read what's written that is understand the meaning that particular post sentence or paragraph is saying is directly related to the groupism politics and powerplay sentence I wrote, specificly the groupism or sheepism (That is a slightly harsh term I use, but apologies if it offends)

Okay, so now I am getting very curious about what this means because for the life of me I can not figure the logic behind this. What is this power play people have mentioned? I'm not seeing anyone here trying to gain power, to take someone else's position away from them, nothing like that at all. Can someone explain this? The veiled suggestion that it this is my motivation for writing the blog post is unfounded and unsupported by anything I have said. I have not said here that Dark should step down, that a user should replace him, that a moderator should replace him, or any variation of the above. I have put my feelings and thoughts on his actions into my blog post, however as I said I am one person and that is all. Anyone can be upset, or anyone can not care, one person's feelings hold no more weight than another's. However if you feel because I have an opinion on the matter that everything I wrote is now in question then I have nothing else to add to this specific disagreement. You and others are more than welcome to feel that way no matter how much I disagree with the stretching of logic it took to get to that conclusion.

grryfindore wrote:

As to your bias or lack there of, and everything else in general, all I have to say is.
1. I know your feelings about the forums, and that of the people you associate with in fact we have had discussions about the views you hold about the forum, Dark and so on. The discussions weren't overly long, as I am not a fan of those big_smile but they were direct enough. so at least you aren't exactly neutral and not the right person (unbiased) to be researching anything or linking anything in a neutral unbiased manner.

I believe you and me have had interactions  in the past, mainly only through Core-Exiles. I also have no doubt I have talked about how much I dislike the forums, but as stated above, that has always been because of the community. If you reread the first paragraph of the blog post, you'll see this is a two part series. The second part will be talking about the community, meaning the users who make up the forums, not the moderators. This has been in my ideas folder for every blog contributor to see for nearly a year now, this wasn't anything new born out of anger or spite towards one person.
As for us talking about Dark specifically, if we did I don't remember it, however I'm not saying we didn't. Since I had no bad opinions of Dark at the time that doesn't bother me. I did check my skype history for up to a year back, both for just you and for the core-exiles group. Nothing there either, so we must of talked on Discord or via CE Pm which I have no record of sadly.
As for the people I associate with, this isn't anything new or shocking to anyone. There are just a handful of people I talk to on a daily basis. Anyone who has logged into the BSG TT server can see this for them self. The people are
Alicia
JimmyDub
Pyro
Hamada
Hannibal
Amine
Sito
I already put inn the disclaimer section I am friends with JimmyDub, and even with that said I completely agree he should of been banned. The only thing I found of note from that situation was the lifetime banning. I've already stated this in the blog post quite clearly.

grryfindore wrote:

2. The forums topics, posts etc quotes can be checked, yes but you could really prove anything and everything if you link pieces in the right way any person who has studied research could tell you that.
draw on the right posts and people, don't draw on a few others and just show the picture / parts of the picture and you could prove anything at all, Say what you will.

It is quite easy for anyone, not just you to realize this, by nature that is exactly how it works and there is nothing against that. I'm getting the feeling you are still of the assumption I went into this to attack dark from the start, again this is not true, and I have stated this over and over in the blog post and I believe on the forums as well. If you don't believe me then that's fine, say so, but saying I have some sort of hidden motivation is just dishonest and false.
It is 100% true the situations I found are things I found of interest. Isn't this clear to everyone? I would not have written a blog post about it if I didn't find them interesting. I am the one who connected the dots based on how I saw them connected, this shouldn't even need to be said as it is so blatantly obvious. I simply wrote the post for others to see what I saw, and to give them the information I got from talking to people involved with the different situations. IF anyone finds this an issue then that's perfectly fine, that is their right. What isn't correct is assuming I did this intentionally from the start because of some unknown motive to me and to everyone else. I am also not saying Dark has never done a good job moderating the forums, but the history of the questionable decisions are the point of the blog post.

grryfindore wrote:

Some of my previous post wasn't at smoke-J But other parts were, it was at certain parts of the forum members that have been the cause of all the negativity and ass holishness lol around here lately.

I hope you can also understand the criteria for someone being an ass hole is different for every person. Using this for a reason for moderator action is not the proper way to go as it allows for everyone to have a different interpretation which then leads to problems which could be completely avoided.

In summary to what @grryfindore  said:
I have no personal stake in people deciding the post is good or bad. The only thing I am trying to defend is my motives, how I came to my conclusions, and my intent in writing the blog post. Disagree with the post all you want, this doesn't matter to me at all, but suggesting I did this for personal reasons is a flat lie and an unproven accusation made in attempt to discredit the post as a whole. Disagree all you want, no one really cares about, or at least they shouldn't care about it, the issue comes when the attempt is made to cast aspersions on me and the post due to an assumed motivation which is incorrect. You seem to want to discredit the entire post based on accusing me of incorrectly  perceived hidden motives, I see no reason to continue to defend this as anyone else can seperate my opinions from the rest of the post.
I also feel it is necessary to put this here though I never would of imagined it would be needed. If the power play people are hinting at is that I myself want to become a moderator you have lost your ever loving mind. Just the thought of this makes me want to beat my head against the wall until the idea leaves it. My time of attempting or being a part of any sort of moderation or administration is dead and gone. My experiences with this in the past are unpleasant and I have no interest in attempting it again. If I'm being completely honest I am not cut out for moderation of a game or forums. I really don't like most people, and having to pretend as if I do is just too much damn work. Just ask Akilor how that worked out for the both of us...if you didn't know we don't get along at all. Hell ask anyone I have talked to, I think this is very well known.

@assault_freak
Yes the comments are what I extrapolated on my own. This is why I added in that the post is not free of my opinions and my thoughts on the different situations. Everyone can read it and make up their own minds, I am not trying to convince anyone otherwise.
Also as for your deleted post, yes there is a paragraph at the bottom of the blog post which tells people about the different ways they can support the blog. This could turn into a much longer explanation of my refusing to put adds on BSG, and how the blog does not make money, but loses it every month but I'm not going to go any farther on that. Also just for your information That paragraph or something similar will be on every post from here on out, not because it has had any effect, but because it is the only reminder to anyone who reads our posts as I have not pushed it in the past.

@criticview
Though it does hurt my heart in a way I cannot explain, I do agree with some of what you said. If nothing comes out of this a consolidated rules and better warning system would be something everyone could benefit from.

@NicklasMCHD and others who have said the same:
I'm sorry but it simply is not an option to say the names of who I talked to. I strictly said I would not say their names, and I believe this is the only reason they agreed to talk to me. I will point out that any moderators here could have said if I'm lying easy enough as they would have been a part of the moderator discussions and decisions  as well. I'm also not saying my information is above reproach as I already issued a correction after learning more after the post was published. This is not the same as the situation in the blog post as again, even those I never talked to can say if I am lying or not. Believe it or not I'm only interested in showing what is true from those I interviewed. If the information is wrong then I have no problem saying so, I am not personally invested in this.

@rashad  @aaron and @CAE_Jones
If I'm being personally  honest this is really what I expected from this blog post. Some discussion to come forward that is going to make the forums better, no matter what that is.

I am also getting the impression that people believe I hate Dark or have some ill will for him. If this comes from the last section of the blog post, there is a reason I put that under the heading "Personal Thoughts and Conclusion". That is because it was my personal thoughts on everything from the entire blog post. I get that it is hard for some to separate that I have opinions on the examples in the post, while at the same time being able to see the blog post as credible. I can't do anything about that, but my opinions on the examples are just that, my opinions and don't change the fact that everything shown are things that happened. Everyone has their own opinions myself included, even if I was the one to write the blog post.
Before publishing I did have a few people read the post and with every one I asked them if the last section was too harsh or not. If any of them would have said yes  then I would have changed it to not come across so intense, but no one told me it was so I left it in how it is. I'm also not saying the rest of the post doesn't have my opinions as it clearly does, but again that does not have anything to do with the post as a whole. I just like anyone else here can decide if they like or dislike someone and state it either here or somewhere else, that however does not detract from what they say.

Overall the attempt for people to discredit the post as a whole based on my opinions and a made up chip on my shoulder is getting very tiresome. I've said all I could possibly say on everything involving this. It would be much more refreshing if in the future you just called me a lier and that you don't trust me personally, and therefore you don't trust anything in the post. I think this would save everyone a lot of time reading, and the hassel of replying.

blackscreengaming.com
The BSG Blog
follow @BSG_blog on twitter
"Facts don't care about your feelings" Ben Shapiro

Thumbs up +2

2018-10-16 21:29:04

@77, damn, I like your ruthlessness. smile And, at the rest of you who want to discedit Smoke-J, remember what I posted prior -- you are not entitled to your opinion but your informed opinion. You have no right to be ignorant especially in this situation where the information is practically in your face. And while I get that some of your opinions are informed, most of them are downright stupid. Keep in mind that this guy has done research, research that you have not done. You cannot disprove anything he wrote in his blog post purely because you have no evidence to disprove it. Unless you have counter-evidence to disprove anything he's said, and you can bring it forward and state and source it so that the rest of us can check for ourselves that its accurate and true to the best of your and our abilities, you have no right to claim he's lying, nor do you have any right to discredit him (which is character assassination). By continuing to attempt to discredit him without evidence to back yourself up you are only discrediting yourselves and thereby making the possibility of anyone actually believing you in the future less and less.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-10-16 22:05:09 (edited by Smoke-J 2018-10-16 22:05:59)

@Ethin
in post 78

It wasn't even my intent to come across that way. I am just tired of the same thing being said in different ways no matter what the post said or what I say now. I just see no reason to continue to defend myself against the accusations so I'm going to try not to from here on out.

The one thing I wish for this discussion is for it to be constructive. If you think I'm lying then say so, don't vale it in false accusations based on leaps of logic too large for me to follow. If you think something could be done to change the forums for the better then express that. However I also completely agree with others in that just saying Dark needs to be let go or that he needs to step down really isn't helping with the discussion. If this could actually help the forums then wouldn't it be best to show that first in the way we discuss the topic? I have no personal interest in it as my time with the forums ended a long time ago, I only posted this and continue this so others can see what I saw after the fact and make up their own minds.

blackscreengaming.com
The BSG Blog
follow @BSG_blog on twitter
"Facts don't care about your feelings" Ben Shapiro

Thumbs up

2018-10-16 22:12:59 (edited by The Dwarfer 2018-10-16 22:28:35)

I just wanted to pause in my reading to point out probably one of the most hypocritical and self-contradictory posts I'd yet seen in the topic thus far. We have here someone trying to act above it all, like one of the "good folk" of yore who was once part of a peaceful place... etc. He condemns insults and going after people (stating names), while pointing out that ironcross would've been banned much faster if he were on the team and calling him and Ethin and others "hanger ons". See, my thing is, if you're going to try to be condescending and act like the good guy? Don't do exactly what you say everyone else does in the same post... it seriously makes it hard to take you seriously. This is why the one thing religion has correct, imho, is that no man is good enough to judge another man.
"what has happened to being polite to people and getting your point across or disagreement across in a manner that doesn't directly or indirectly degrades a persom or makes comments on them which aren't exactly nice."
I don't know, you tell me dude. Although... if I must say, bringing the reasoning for Ethin's ban and saying lmao you deserve it or anything to that effect is not the way to go if you'd like to restore civility. Plus, suggesting that people who don't agree with you isn't thinking, as Smoke pointed out earlier... is perhaps one of the least polite and most condescending and degrading positions you can assume in an argument. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the 3 thumbs up you received for such a hypocritical and condescending piece of unfounded bigotry.

grryfindore wrote:

Hi,
SirBadger, thank you. I thought everyone had gone shit crazy on here. your post, at least makes me believe that there might be a few who have their heads out of all this politics groupism and powerplays.

Having been a member of this forum for quite a while now, all I have to say is, most bans that I have seen were quite warrented, and hell there were some people such as Ironcross that would have gotten a boot much faster and for much longer if I were in the mods position.
Nowadays we all or most of us seem to think  that insulting people, being rude and making personal comments is something good and something to be lorded depending on who our friends are,the friend cercle we move in and who the insults or derogatory
comments are aimed at.

The close topics if you notice that we seem to be talking about recently were mostly due to people such as Ethin, Ironcross and a few other hanger ons who tend to pat people such as Ironcrosses back when he goes on one of his insulting sprees.

All that I wonder is, besides all this bullshit and politics along with the groupism, what has happened to being polite to people and getting your point across or disagreement across in a manner that doesn't directly or indirectly degrades a persom or makes comments on them which aren't exactly nice.
A few years ago, call it about 4 years, the forum used to be a type of place where anyone at all could post anything, and not have a few thousand people jump down their throats for improper english, spellings or make fun of them or insult them. If you liked android, you could say so, and the people who are were android fans could jump on and have a nice discussion about it. Same for apple, Screenreaders, gay, feeling suicidal etc. not exact examples but kind of anyway. It used to be a nice supportive and generally just a nice place to hang out on.
It all has been going down ever sinse a few people (I still see it as impolite to take names here) joined the forums, grew up and got a few hanger ons along with them. and now what they want is for this to go down even further in the dumps where insulting  so called people who deserve it in whos opinion, I ask? in yours person X may deserve some insults, a reality check according to some people, in mine it doesn't, and I am sure in a few others opinions as well, what is to be done in such a case?

Saying what you want is fare enough, that's what forums and discussion boards exist for, but IMO when you start insulting people and calling names, that's where a line has to be drawn and said enough is enough.

In closing, all I would like to say is
about the blog post the op talks about, Smoke-J isn't exactly the most objective person when it comes to this forum (stw etc) and it can not have been more bias, or actually it could be, if you were to go looking.so I wouldn't exactly read and believe all of it and think all of it is objective. when Articles are subjective and full of biases and each persons perseptions I wouldn't go believeing all I read.
Slight edit, Ethin, lmao mate believe me, most reasonable people would think your ban was most certainly deserved. And you are probably better behaved on here because of that. perfect example, I say.

And for all the rest of you, If you are actually capable of reading, understanding and having a few thoughts of your own,
Mind your own biscuits and life will be gravy.
Here is a song for you, read the lyrics, they are for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E598KjYyBJI
Grryf

Twitter: stevo399
Website: stevend.net
Have a nice day!

2018-10-16 22:34:39

@80, Lmao I didn't even bother reading that. And no, I don't feel most of my bans were deserved. My first ban was because someone who was just as immature as I was back then reported me. The report wasn't tested for evidence or truthfulness; the mods never actually did anything to prove it was factual; they just banned me. For two damn years. None of the bans have forced me to mature. None of them have. I have matured of my own volition and willingness; I have matured because I wanted to mature and be an adult. No ban will ever force someone to grow up or mature especially when the ban was a report filedby someone who's claim is circumstantial at best; in fact, it only makes them resent you. I can't find the first time I was banned (or the exact reason why), and looking back through my emails between 2010-2012 I can't help but consider my younger self a complete ass, incredibly immature, and an absolute idiot. I can't exactly hate my younger self since I'd be hating myself, but I certainly do regret everything I did back then -- I acted like a complete retard. Then again, perhaps I'm being too harsh on myself. big_smile

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-10-16 23:08:33

Smoke,

You definitely raise some good points, and have spent a lot of time researching. However, I take issue with the way you're raising your points: let's start with the blog post. I'll try not to make large jumps in logic and explain my steps.

the title: The Unacceptable Audiogames Forum Moderation Exposed
A Story of How One Person Can Ruin The Whole
So first, I think this is not constructive at all. I conclude this from the following:
Being constructive means being helpful to someone instead of upsetting and negative, according to a dictionary. Now saying that someone has ruined the whole sounds upsetting to me, especially in this case. Although I believe dark has made serious errors in judgement, keep in mind that there's a lot of things that need to happen: one of them is the maintenance of the database. Go ahead and take a look at the frontpage and the news items. Who has done the most work? Exactly. So at least dark hasn't ruined the whole: we have the database.



blog post wrote:

There have been moderation choices through the years of the forum that have been questionable. Some have been minor, others have been complete character assassinations on one person. I’ve spent hours and hours researching and interviewing users and moderators of the forums trying to find answers and explanations for the unfair moderation practices. The one thing I ask of all readers is to set aside personal biases you have of users or moderators, both positive and negative.

now this adds insult to injury. How are we supposed to set asside all biases if they are in the title, and in the line just before asking readers to setting them asside? you state that the moderation practices are unfair, which is an opinion.


blog post wrote:

This post is not my opinions, but my gathering of all the situations I’ve found and tying them together to show everyone what I have come to see.

and what you have come to see is what? If you see something a certain way, that sounds like an opinion to me.

blog post wrote:

Dark simply closes down the topic because people are disagreeing with him. There is no other way to see it.

Let's see if there is another way of seeing it: If dark didn't want people disagreeing with him, why did he open another topic announcing that ironcross was banned? If he didn't want anyone to talk on the matter, he could have closed the topic after making it, so it only contains one post. So why does dark close the topic? maybe because he didn't want this discussion in there? I probably wouldn't have closed it, but in my opinion one thing is clear: if you want to disagree with dark, you can.

smoke-j wrote:

I'm getting the feeling you are still of the assumption I went into this to attack dark from the start, again this is not true, and I have stated this over and over in the blog post and I believe on the forums as well. If you don't believe me then that's fine, say so, but saying I have some sort of hidden motivation is just dishonest and false.

blog post wrote:

A Story of How One Person Can Ruin The Whole

Either you wrote this blog post backwards, or you are attacking dark from the start. Saying that he ruined the whole sounds like an attack to me.

Roel
golfing in the kitchen

Thumbs up +4

2018-10-16 23:22:21

@82, that is true; however that does not mean that the blog was untrue or should be discredited because it exaggerated in only a couple paragraphs at the beginning. And no, I'm not saying you did.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-16 23:45:51

@84 that's true.
@ everyone

To be blunt, this forum isn't a democracy. Therefor, dark doesn't need to do anything, unless the webmasters boot him. This does not mean I don't think something should change; just keep in mind all the moderators are doing this in there spare time just like developers, so the least we can do is be as constructive as possible, again this does not mean not voicing your criticisms.

Roel
golfing in the kitchen

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-16 23:46:14

@roelvdwal in post number 82
Just going to keep this as simple as possible.

The title refers to the whole as in the moderation team, as this is a post  about moderation.
This post only concerns the forums, not the database or anything else with the site outside of moderation on the forums. I wouldn't say anything bad about the rest of the site as I didn't even look into that, and there isn't anything bad as far as I've ever heard.
Bias meaning people choosing to  start with X is my friend so all is true or  false. That is  a two directional road. Like I said before when I started the blog post this was also my stance when I started, before a single word had been written.
My opinion would be person X is Y or Z, seeing a pattern isn't my opinion. You could say that me believing there is a pattern is my opinion yes.
Yes dark closed that topic, then opened a new topic only to close the new topic for the same reason, again the pattern.
The post is about moderation, I thought that was clear as that is what the entire thing is about. The whole refers to the whole moderation team. the post is about the moderation of the forums. Quoting the title of the post shows that quite easily since it doesn't say community, or website, but that it's about the forum moderation.
If the forums were full of as many examples  showing the same pattern for other mods please let me know and I have no problem showing those patterns as well. I did look, the issue is I didn't find anything that showed a history of similar things happening with any other mods.

blackscreengaming.com
The BSG Blog
follow @BSG_blog on twitter
"Facts don't care about your feelings" Ben Shapiro

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 00:03:14 (edited by vlad25 2018-10-17 00:04:58)

the only thing i have to say is the following. i'm sorry to hear all this. i still can't believe he did it and i'm pretty disapointed. i knew about the walter situation, but i never saw what happened to him since then i never knew this was the cause of him vanishing. i have a friend out side of the community who is known just by me, sam tupy and justsome other people, and he's the one still can reach him, but it's just sometimes, not often. he still has the website,  but i don't know if he still posts on it or not since i didn't visitedit for a long time.
but now back to topic, just shame on dark for involving a friendship in his job. well, then let's say if i'm working to maintain a company's system or what ever, if my brother wants some information that he shouldn't normaly have access to, i'l give it anyways, because come on, it's my brother, what the hell? that would actually instantly get me fired. well, this case that is actually going on is not that bad since he's not making money of doing this, but he still got a bad rep, and i'm actually sorry to be part of the ag net orum because of this.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 00:17:50

hi all.
I'm not going to weigh in with my opinion on this issue, because frankly I don't have one, and probably won't have one until dark tells his side of the story.
I do however want to point out something that I have seen many people say on this topic. it was also something I believe was said on the blog post.
I have seen many people point out the fact that so and so user should have been banned a long time ago, and that if dark wasn't in charge, it would have happend already. THe thing I think people need to realize is that dark isn't the only moderator of this sight, and I feel as if people are treating him as the only moderator, and placing a little too much blame on him for bans that should have happend a long time ago. This is nothing at all against the moderators of this sight, because I have no problem with any of them, but I just want to say this. The fact that so and so should have been banned a long time ago and was just now getting a ban is I feel irrelevant. There are many moderators of this sight, and just because dark is the chief moderator does not mean that the other mods don't have the power to ban someone. Now you could argue that the other mods might be afraid of their power being revoked by dark if they made a ban that he didn't agree with, but that's not the right way to be moderating a sight, and i'm sure none of the mods are guilty of this. I am in no way excusing rude behavior on this sight, but I am pointing out something that I don't think dark can be held entirely responsible for.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 01:29:07

The way I saw this post was that yes, Smoke expressed opinion, but he indicated when he did so to insure it wouldn't blur with the true facts. Of course though, as might be the case with many who agree with the post, my biggest issue is and has always been the Walter situation. I watched that one unfold as it did, and could only gather from it a lot of nontransparent at best, shady at worst, he said she said going on. My thing is - if Dark new the situation yet still went on with yes, a character assassination since he's a leading figure of the community, he should or should have stepped down in the past. It's not about the other work he's done - though there is a lot, and a lot of it high quality I'm sure many of us can agree. It's the principle; the fact that he'd be capable of such a thing if it would benefit him or a personal connection. I for example have trolled in the past on games and such, quite a bit. Character assassination, a complete and blatant form of cyber bullying, defamation, and slander, has not been a thing I would partake in. Not only is it illegal and immoral, but that thing should never be taken lightly because it can and most definitely does cause serious consequences such as suicide in cases.
I'm not going to say he knowingly did it though, we don't have his side yet. Still, even if he was tricked, he should probably have stepped down because A, he refused to except the proof and B, that was one of the most damaging snap decisions he could've made at the time and shows a very serious and critical lack of judgement.
I'm not buying that it happened. I get being sensitive, but the wall of proof has been stacked way too high especially with this post. And before people accuse me of participating in some form of groupism, no. I'm forming this opinion not on the basis that he banned someone unjustly or whatever, but on a clear as day demonstration of willful ignorance or snap judgement that ruined someone's online life in the audiogames.net forum. He was given the proof, but chose to look the other way and hold fast to his judgement.

Twitter: stevo399
Website: stevend.net
Have a nice day!

2018-10-17 01:33:04

Warning, incoming wall of subjectivity. Read on at own risk.
First off, although I appreciate the time and energy put into writing the post and agree the material reveals unquestionable truths, I unfortunately am in partial agreement with 82 about the method of delivery. When writing a research thesis, it's of course always good practice to be completely factual, and doing otherwise can lead to exactly the kind of uproar we're seeing here as people fail to separate fact from opinion. In the first paragraph, you write, "This post is not my opinions, but my gathering of all the situations I’ve found and tying them together to show everyone what I have come to see." Wait, what? I thought you said you would be mixing your opinions with the facts. This kind of confusing mixture of truth and subjectivity is common throughout the article, and I believe this is why many of us are questioning it's legitimacy. That being said, once we look past that confusing bit, what seem initially to be biased twists of fact reveal themselves to be commentary on the undeniable truth laid out for all to behold. In deed I'm curious how many of you actually read any of the quoted posts in greater detail than was provided in the article, as I think understanding the contexts of the situations would shed some light on smoke's summaries and evaluations. I agree with your opinions and value your research. I just think you could have been more realistic than expecting people to be able to make the separation as well as you or I.

NicklasMCHD wrote:

I agree with what's written in the blog post to a large extend. But the thing is that it's getting a really bad view from this topic, because everyone that seams to be in agreement is someone that have or have had problems with Dark in the past.

This sounds like an assumption, and it's one that has been made several times so far. I'd be happy to take you and others up on this claim if you  are willing to cite topics/posts of those in agreement with smoke's findings having run-ins with Dark. However, seeing as that constitutes a pretty overwhelming majority of posters, and several people have already stated their neutrality towards him, I'm not confident that will happen.
I'll take this opportunity to point out my own virtually unblemished record on this forum, and my lack of personal association with Dark. I will say though that, moderation aside, he seems like a cool guy from the stuff of his that i'd read. If you get him going on a subject that catches his interest (guide dogs, games, books) his rants are interesting, thoughtful and conversation-provoking. That being said, there are certain things you just don't do as both a member of a community, and one who is charged with keeping order in said community. Using a position of influence to destroy someone's online life certainly qualifies as an unforgiveable offense. Although I knew Walter, and we talked from time to time, calling him my friend would be a stretch. We worked together as stw admins for a while, then later I agreed to host a tt channel for his podcasts. So i guess you could call it a casual business relationship, but it was enough to see the effect it had on him. His personality completely changed. He was much more passive, less fun-loving and more shy. He also faided away and was eventually never heard from again. That sounds a lot more like what would happen to an innocent victem of character assasination rather than a violent and predatorial sociopath.
Dark also has quite a history of using personal feelings as a basis for administrative/moderator actions. Even in my relatively low level of experience on these forums, one pretty minor, but still frustrating, incident comes to mind. I'll be pointing to this topic about webl boxing simulator, in which I recommended it be added to the db, and his response was the following:

dark wrote:

As far as WEBL Goes, the problem basically is the same as for all sports management games, which is that I personally just don't feel qualified to write about them as they're a genre of game  have no interest in, or indeed enough background knolidge  at least  enough to write about.

If you have no interest in it, I'd suggest having another mod do it, doing the negligible amount of research required to write a short description, or maybe even having a community member do it. Now there's a thought. Allow community members to draft db entries and submit them for review, similar to a site like apple vis. Whatever the solution, it was a shame to not have a perfectly accessible and awesome game, or even genre, be added because of someone's personal feelings or experience.
If you've made it this far, which you probably haven't, you might be wondering, what do I want done about this guy? Well, as said above, I personally have nothing against him. However, Dark has proven time and again that he is incapable of separating his personal feelings from his administrative judgments, and that is a capital problem in the moderator world where objectivity and honesty reign. You might think I'm voting for his resignation, and I'm not saying that's off the table. But first and foremost, what I'd really like to see is a complete redefinition of the expectations of me and my fellow members. Man's inherently subjective nature makes every justice system flawed, but it's possible to reduce the errors to fractions of a percent by ensuring the rules are as clear and have as few ambiguations as possible. Unfortunately, complete clarity is also an impossible thing due to the seemingly infinite complexity of humans, but again, we're aiming for realism, not perfection. What I mean to say is, we need a clear system of rules that is easy for everyone to understand; for the community to reasonably follow and the moderators to enforce.
My years of administrative experience on stw and redspot were very enlightening. They taught me a lot about how to be fair, stick to the facts, and deal with unreasonable people. One of the most important things I learned is that, if the rules are vague, hard to understand or hard to find, people just won't follow them, or at least will unknowingly do something wrong. That goes for users and admins alike. Redspot in particular had an attrocious rules document written by a one man admin team in probably 10 minutes, and we all know the result of that. Admins treated players unfairly, brought their personal feelings into situations and often made up their own rules which were consistently enforced by only the admin who invented them. Similarly, players frequently expressed frustration when they were disciplined for rules they didn't know existed or pointed out holes in the system, and many simply ignored the document completely. Toward the end of its life, the admin team was cleaned up, uncooperative or inactive members were removed, and those who were left were the ones willing to unite for the singular purpose of making redspot a better game. Communication between the members of the team was streamlined, and the expectations for the players were no longer fragmented by certain admins making up rules they thought should be there. The improvement in quality of life was gradual but noticeable. The rules for this site need a similar reworking, as it seems to me that many members, myself included, didn't even know about the rules in the FAQ section, which is a downright silly place to put rules if you ask me. That aside, many of the questions, or rules, in that post are generalized descriptions that could apply to just about anything an admin wants to apply it to. for these reasons, I'm not sure Dark is entirely to blame for bringing his feelings into certain situations, as that's what people resort to when the expectations are badly defined.
My hope with all this, as it was for redspot, is to see improvement in administration practices. Whether that means rewriting rules, seeing that people are removed or what have you, that decision thankfully isn't on my shoulders this time. Although this community can get nasty sometimes, I still see a lot of potential in it and hope it's remaining life is long. I'm in support of whatever needs to be done to make that happen. I also hope that the people in power will take my, fairly informed I dare say, opinion into consideration when deciding what to do. I did start drafting a rules document for redspot before it's untimely end, and I still have it in case it ever returns, so if anyone wants more concrete advice I'd be happy to share summaries of what I did if you believe it will help.
Long live AGNet

Thumbs up +5

2018-10-17 04:41:40

Right. So, I went through the FAQ on the site and forum feedback section. I wanted to verify the whole two sets of rules thing. Actually, the rules page seems like it's long overdue for an update in general. When was the last time it was updated? Second, the FAQ, it seems, the only reason why it even has rules that the rules page does not is that above complaint about the rules page not having been updated in so long. FAQ 15, and the questions on clones and code theft come to mind. Many of the others seem to be clarifications of preexisting rules in the rules section. That being said, I think a general agreement to uphold copyright should be placed in both the FAQ, and the language may wish to be updated on the rules page as well, so no one gets the wrong idea. Oh, and consolidate the two FAQ pages into just one to prevent confusion. If I remember correctly, they are two different threads, and not just pointers to the same thread which is a bit shaky. As for the charges against Dark here, I think I will wait to here from the accused as it were.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 06:05:14

I agree with the blog post shown here. Topics have been closed that shouldn't have been. You're all supposed to be adults. Grow, up!

2018-10-17 06:08:32

At 86, it's true that the website hasn't seen many updates, and this debacle is a primary reason for that. I've done some work to keep it afloat myself, but there's only so much I can do, considering that Blind Access was founded as a team effort, and I don't feel right taking it over completely. In case anyone doesn't know, I am one of the podcasters on that team, the website is linked below my signature.

And at 89, you're right, as much as it hurts me to admit it. The fact of the matter is, I had a part to play in the whole situation that unfolded. I don't know when, if ever, I'll reveal those details publicly. Nor am I entirely sure it will be necessary. However, I made a mistake, a grave one, in fact, and I'm taking steps to try to make it right. We certainly had our differences, but Walter should never have been banned from this forum. After it happened, he did indeed become a different person, someone I hardly recognize anymore, and that's the worst part for me. There is no possible way I can even pretend to be objective about this, so I think I'll leave it at that for now.

As for the points that have been raised about consolidating the rules and such, I couldn't agree more. When I was a moderator of a couple email lists several years ago, it was pretty much expected that you would have a concrete, documented set of rules in place. To not have one would be silly, unless you were one of the special breed who ran completely unmoderated Yahoo groups. As such, even though I was completely inexperienced with such things, I drafted a set of rules, which basically amounted to: don't spam, ask for permission before advertising external groups/unrelated websites, and don't be a complete raging troll. I set these rules out in a much more professional fashion, of course, but the thing that I learned is that rules should be concise, easy to understand, and written in a laid-back, maybe slightly humorous, way. That's the best way to ensure that people will actually read, and therefore, adhere to them. Obviously, that doesn't work in all cases, and for this forum, there definitely need to be a bit more nuances than you might need for the average email list. But you need to establish firm boundaries, while also seeming approachable enough that you won't scare potential posters away by being too draconian and rigid. In other words, I don't think it's acceptable to have the FAQ masquerading as an unofficial rules document. There should be one, and only one, place where policies are laid out, end of story.

The glass is neither half empty nor half full. It's just holding half the amount it can potentially hold.

2018-10-17 12:04:24

there should be only 1 set of rules. i've never been anywhere that has in affect 2 sets of rules. to be honest until i read that blog post i never even new there was a second set. which really is a bit silly if you ask me. although i still stand by what i said in my first post as in 69, dark has the right to defend himself and i look forward to reading what he has to say on this matter.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 14:36:32

I just thought I would let everyone know that yes, there is a discussion about this on the mod list now, and that discussion is including Dark. All I can really say right now is hang tight, because I don't know how long it's going to take to come up with something. There's a lot of points we all need to consider as mods.

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-17 14:46:05

Ah sure like the discussion on copyright that publically went nowhere. Yeah, I'm cynical now. I'd rather this discussion was out in the open rather than on a mailing lists only mods could access so absolutely everyone could see the messages and draw their own conclusions from everything that everyone says. Hell I'd even extend that to all mod discussions about issues so people can see exactly what's going on and who is saying what. Or, in other words: Accountability, because....let's say |Dark takes a break as a result of these behind closed door discussions, there'll naturally be theories and rumors. Whereas if everything was out in the open, there'd be zero to hide. I'm a firm believer in mod dealings being transparent and honest, it doesn't look good, Aaron, with the recent blog  post then you saying oh hang tight only the mods are going to discuss this on a private mailing list. It's rife with issues, chief of which is nobody knows for sure what's being said and who is arguing what points and in what direction. I'd much, much rather have the whole discussion(s, including the copyright reform that nothing's come of....yet) out in the open for everyone to inspect all the evidence and points of view and draw their own conclusions, rather than just have one guy say oh we're talking about it but you just have to trust what I tell you, because trust in the mods is shaky at best right now.

Jusy my $0.02

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up +2

2018-10-17 15:41:19

I agree with JaceK. If the discussion was closed so only  mods could post in it that would be best. SO we can see how each of them interprets what's going on but can't interfere. Like how US congress meetings are open to spectators.

I like to sleep, Sleep is good,
This is how I do it: Lie on a nice warm cozy bed, and dream dreams about how to rule the world!
Follow @TheGreatAthlon5 on twitter for humorous facts and game updates!
If you like my posts, thumb me up!

2018-10-17 15:52:28

I agree as well. Mods need to stop this "Oh we should be secluded" stuff until we all can afirm that the moderator eam can be fully trusted once again.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 15:53:00

I was thinking these days when I came here back in 2016 how nice were all people here, noone blammed my nonunderstandable english, it was the best place to hang out with other blind users, from here I got alot of friends.
Now, everyone is talking about closed topics, banned users and moderation issues.
And from my opinion, Dark made mistakes like everyone, imagine you were in his clothes and had to take such big decisions, how you reacted if you were him.
I will keep it short, it makes me sad to see these things happenning.
And regarding the 3 months ban for Ironcross, he did not deserve it in that topic, he said it better than everyone, I know he had alot of warnings and I am not sure why he got it this time, not in other more serious cases.

I am myself and noone is ever gonna change me, I am the trolling master!

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-17 15:53:16

I'd also agree with the last couple posts. I can fully understand there may be things said between mods that may not want to be publicly shared, but it's important to have transparency especially right now. I'm unsure of a compromise, but there has to be some sort of a middle ground.

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my space bar. Prepare to die!

http://l-works.net

2018-10-17 15:54:21

It would be interesting to read such discussions. I wonder if whatever they're using to host the mailing list does have archives somewhere one can look at.

Make more of less, that way you won't make less of more!
If you like what you're reading, please give a thumbs-up.

Thumbs up

2018-10-17 16:43:26

agreed, i think in this sense enough is enough and these things need to be out in the open now otherwise all this is meaningless.

Thumbs up