Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-04-02
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,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 regards. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/424431/#p424431 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-04-02
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,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 regards. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/424431/#p424431 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-31
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I think what is needed is for us, as a collective, to step back and let the moderators get on with it without questioning every single moderation decision. Each individual in this community is not going to agree with every moderation decision; however, we need to strike a balance as to when to speak up about it and when not to. I also think the mods should do a better job of communicating and saying, hey, would you look into this, I'm too close to the situation right now. I can't say that this is not happening, as I am not privy to that information, but I suspect it is happening less than it could be. That's why it's a moderation team and not a loose organization of moderators. Teamwork will prevail here.@ironcross32, learn to keep your big fat mouth shut! URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423982/#p423982 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Just to piggyback on one of Cartertemm's analysis a bit:MasterOfDeath wrote:"Don't you think it's a bit childish that you think one single guy, just one, can enforce the whole community to use a particular version of skype or anything?"This reminds me of how his posts really lack substance or organization, and it was easy to confuse who he was addressing. He was actually talking about Simter's purpose for the thread, not Jaydes' desire to close it. He was basically implying Jayde should take it with a grain of salt, never mind the fact that trying to guilt the community into using a particular version of Skype is not possible, it was rather the way he expressed himself, and because! of his trying to guilt the community, rather than would it work or not. That's what he was trying to imply. Just another hardy serving of the anarchist mindset with a side baseless arguments blown way out of proportion to back it up.That being said, my purpose wasn't even to specifically correct Cartertemm's analysis, but more or less to demonstrate further how MasterOfDeath's posts are so off base altogether. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423972/#p423972 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read MasterOfDeath wrote:Don't you think it's a bit childish that you think one single guy, just one, can enforce the whole community to use a particular version of skype or anything? Do you think a single guy, without protection or any support, an guide you by your nose? What could he do against you if you don't do what he wants?Seriously? You have to be either not thinking straight, or, as Jayde said, intentionally twisting the argument into your favor because of personal bias. Look. The forum's disarray may have been caused by a lack of mod order, months ago. Now, the moderators are doing a fine job, but they're having to do their job more because of the epidemic of idiocy that is seemingly increasing. Do I have to refer you to post 26 again, you know what, I will, because while it is true that Simter can't force the community as you say, he certainly tried guilt-tripping the community, like so:simter wrote:So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork.Ahh yes. Preserving the true jerks from blame. Blaming the users who pass around this oh so horrible piece of software called Skype 7. People who may genuinely need it. That is where we step into guilt territory. If you can't understand that, you're too far gone and I can't help you. I've done all the explaining I could. I searched through his warnings (it wasn't that hard, really) when I didn't have to. We've tried to do all the explaining we can, but you seem to either want this place to be an anarchy, or some other thing that I'd guess 95% of the people (me included) don't want. Shove it, will you?Alright, now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about Sid's point as there's validity to them, but they really won't help in the long run.sid512 wrote:such closed threads being visible once every 500 topics is a thing, but encountering them more than a couple of times per page suggests that something horrible is going on.But that's exactly it, Sid. We both know that even 6 years ago, you would rarely see more than 3 closed threads per page. Drama was more spread out. Editing posts will raise a lot of questions (remember when the Oriol Gaming Zone topic was suddenly deleted and replaced by another one, and people were asking well what the hell just happened?) Moderators really only reserve the edit for extreme cases, where someone will have posted a link to a crack and (link removed by moderator) is likely to be put in its place. Editing and deleting doesn't help the situation, and it actually does not create a better image of the site for new folks. In fact, it does quite the opposite effect; an honest site will not create a false cover story by editing and watering down content and say, oh look, this site is great (Howard Sherman rightfully got shit for that for carefully editing customer's review of Malinche titles to remove the negative parts.) I highly doubt this site would want to stoop to that low. Also, the word is already out about how some of the community just can't act out of kindness, as Ian Hamilton a while back had advised new developers to steer clear of the forum because of the general attitude. The damage has already been done just because some people chose to dick over the users (yes, annoying unnecessary threads is also considered as such.)Also, teenagers: we must define that more clearly now since age does not define maturity, as is shown by these younger individuals who seem to have been given technology at way too young an age without any form of supervision.sid512 wrote:the moderators had mentioned the fact that games are indeed played by teenagers the most; they deserve to be a part of the forums. That argument is a half-mute point as there are, on one side of the coin, some adults who have shown less maturity than some teens, while on that same token you have people who are, by definition, teenagers, but they sure don't act the part. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423951/#p423951 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Aaron, I think that would be a good idea. I think the reason Jayde probably closed it was because of the subtle threatening nature of the original post:simter wrote:So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork.there could've been another topic that asked genuine skype questions, and maybe a few jerks here and there starting the fire, but overall the topic seems fairly civil. I'm sure then Jayde would've given warnings and left it at that. Thing was, the topic was started by the instigator. Let's get some stats. This doesn't count Jayde's post because that was for closing the topic.Useless Flaming: 30%, including the original postRightful Complaining over useless flaming: 40%, posts 4 through 7Actual legitimate questions and answers: 30% *finally* posts 8 through 10, may probably be skipped over because the topic started out useless30% on flaming and questions, but because we had to *attempt* to extinguish the flames for 40% of that topic, it left little room for legitimate questions. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423954/#p423954 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Aaron, I think that would be a good idea. I think the reason Jayde probably closed it was because of the subtle threatening nature of the original post:simter wrote:So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork.there could've been another topic that asked a genuine skype questions, and maybe a few jerks here and there starting the fire, but overall the topic seems fairly civil. I'm sure then Jayde would've given warnings and left it at that. Thing was, the topic was started by the instigator. Let's get some stats. This doesn't count Jayde's post because that was for closing the topic.Useless Flaming: 30%, including the original postRightful Complaining over useless flaming: 40%, posts 4 through 7Actual legitimate questions and answers: 30% *finally* posts 8 through 10, may probably be skipped over because the topic started out useless30% on flaming and questions, but because we had to *attempt* to extinguish the flames for 40% of that topic, it left little room for legitimate questions. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423954/#p423954 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read MasterOfDeath wrote:Don't you think it's a bit childish that you think one single guy, just one, can enforce the whole community to use a particular version of skype or anything? Do you think a single guy, without protection or any support, an guide you by your nose? What could he do against you if you don't do what he wants?Seriously? You have to be either not thinking straight, or, as Jayde said, intentionally twisting the argument into your favor because of personal bias. Look. The forum's disarray may have been cost by a lack of mod order, months ago. Now, the moderators are doing a fine job, but they're having to do their job more because of the epidemic of idiocy that is seemingly increasing. Do I have to refer you to post 26 again, you know what, I will, because while it is true that Simter can't force the community as you say, he certainly tried guilt-tripping the community, like so:simter wrote:So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork.Ahh yes. Preserving the true jerks from blame. Blaming the users who pass around this oh so horrible piece of software called Skype 7. People who may genuinely need it. That is where we step into guilt territory. If you can't understand that, you're too far gone and I can't help you. I've done all the explaining I could. I searched through his warnings (it wasn't that hard, really) when I didn't have to. We've tried to do all the explaining we can, but you seem to either want this place to be an anarchy, or some other thing that I'd guess 95% of the people (me included) don't want. Shove it, will you?Alright, now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about Sid's point as there's validity to them, but they really won't help in the long run.sid512 wrote:such closed threads being visible once every 500 topics is a thing, but encountering them more than a couple of times per page suggests that something horrible is going on.But that's exactly it, Sid. We both know that even 6 years ago, you would rarely see more than 3 closed threads per page. Drama was more spread out. Editing posts will raise a lot of questions (remember when the Oriol Gaming Zone topic was suddenly deleted and replaced by another one, and people were asking well what the hell just happened?) Moderators really only reserve the edit for extreme cases, where someone will have posted a link to a crack and (link removed by moderator) is likely to be put in its place. Editing and deleting doesn't help the situation, and it actually does not create a better image of the site for new folks. In fact, it does quite the opposite effect; an honest site will not create a false cover story by editing and watering down content and say, oh look, this site is great (Howard Sherman rightfully got shit for that for carefully editing customer's review of Malinche titles to remove the negative parts.) I highly doubt this site would want to stoop to that low. Also, the word is already out about how some of the community just can't act out of kindness, as Ian Hamilton a while back had advised new developers to steer clear of the forum because of the general attitude. The damage has already been done just because some people chose to dick over the users (yes, annoying unnecessary threads is also considered as such.)Also, teenagers: we must define that more clearly now since age does not define maturity, as is shown by these younger individuals who seem to have been given technology at way too young an age without any form of supervision.sid512 wrote:the moderators had mentioned the fact that games are indeed played by teenagers the most; they deserve to be a part of the forums. That argument is a half-mute point as there are, on one side of the coin, some adults who have shown less maturity than some teens, while on that same token you have people who are, by definition, teenagers, but they sure don't act the part. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423951/#p423951 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I am going to be honest here, speaking as half user and half admin, so no decision here is final, it's just food for thought for the moment.I have not said very much in this topic simply because I do not feel there has been much to say on the matter.I can see both sides of the coin. Why Jayde did this, was to prevent drama from happening. Then the other side is the fact that if he'd left the topic open, things could have, indeed possibly been sorted out by the same token.I am wondering therefore if something like this happens again, is to allow a topic to last at least a page (on my end, that's 25 posts) before making a decision like this, unless a topic goes out of hand very quickly. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423944/#p423944 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-31
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Hi,@Jayde and othersThe question of good faith/bad faith is subject to variation of judgement as you can't define an action as done in good faith or bad faith without fully realizing the intentions of the original poster; although the points raised in post 28 have been agreed by at least 2 other members, which suggests they had been logical to a great extent. If someone wants to avoid double standards, a viable way is to stop shielding a bunch of members for the sake of the entire community. to explain further, under current circumstances and depending on his own judgement, Jayde, demonstrating the best of his intentions closed the thread in order to avoid further heat and confrontation. since most of you guys are regular visitors on this forum, it may not count as something entirely odd and off the shelf. but think of the bigger picture for an instance. according to the front page of audiogames.net, one of the main purposes of this site is to promote audiogames both among the VI and the sighted individuals. Now, if it had been an independent forum with a separate host and its own rules, the moderators could have done as much to close all the 10,000 plus topics spread out neatly over about 14 plus years and no one would have been able to do a thing about it. as this forum belongs to audiogames.net, and caters to the audiogaming community and not just its members, I think the moderators should hold a bit of consideration towards the community as a whole. the current system of bans or the severity of warnings are internal matters which the moderators are supposed to work out among themselves, but seriously, looking at various forum rooms in a nutshell and finding dozens of recently closed topics is what makes the atmosphere comparatively toxic for someone who intends to visit the forum once in a while, or create an account to become a member (including a potential sighted gamer or developer). in other words, there are other ways to stop the fire from spreading out and I respectfully disagree about closing/locking a thread being a plausible means to do so. if the moderators are able to delete and edit posts, why not considering editing the original post to reflect their position, or delete certain phrases from a post, or the posts themselves, or entire topics when the matter gets out of hand? what I'm trying to put out here is closing a thread represents putting a lid on the topic, making it impossible for rest of the members to reply on that topic. such closed threads being visible once every 500 topics is a thing, but encountering them more than a couple of times per page suggests that something horrible is going on. coming back to the example from post 28, you don't start closing down businesses and establishments just because a group of criminals decided to show up and make the places insecure. when the same is criticized, the enforcement officials blame the citizens one way or the other and fail to realize the actual motive behind such criticism at first place. I'm not trying to disregard what the moderators have done but as a member of a community, it doesn't do well to see every 4 out of 50 topics closed across various rooms just because a group of people could not be handed out harsher punishments. looking at this particular topic, it probably needed to be dealt with, but show the topic to a sighted game developer who intends to be a part of this community as a potential developer, and you get how damaging the action and the moderation post might come across to someone who is not aware about those members in particular. you can't just keep on doing what is dictated by good/bad faith, and ignore the rest of the bystanders who did not yet contemplate entering your bar, eg a particular thread. this is not about a single topic; there have been far more closed threads in recent past. if one takes the defense of stating an increase in number of people who cause fire, I'm certain that the same kind of people used to post on the topics 10 years ago; and there was rarely a closed thread. back then, the moderators had mentioned the fact that games are indeed played by teenagers the most; they deserve to be a part of the forums. unfortunately, things have spiraled down to a point where there are more than 50 different topics concerning a user's behavior, although he ultimately got banned. As a bottom line, please don't curtail free speech. please don't restrict people's ability to post on the forum by closing dozens of topics. please don't make the forum a bigger mess eventually encouraging potential visitors and developers to view the forum in a bad light.and, that is all.edit: for the heck of it, I re-read post 1 through 10 of the topic and nothing suggests a possible flame war. there was certainly a bit of hostile tone but I don't see how the poster intends to force people to use
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-31
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Hi,@Jayde and othersThe question of good faith/bad faith is subject to variation of judgement as you can't define an action as done in good faith or bad faith without fully realizing the intentions of the original poster; although the points raised in post 28 have been agreed by at least 2 other members, which suggests they had been logical to a great extent. If someone wants to avoid double standards, a viable way is to stop shielding a bunch of members for the sake of the entire community. to explain further, under current circumstances and depending on his own judgement, Jayde, demonstrating the best of his intentions closed the thread in order to avoid further heat and confrontation. since most of you guys are regular visitors on this forum, it may not count as something entirely odd and off the shelf. but think of the bigger picture for an instance. according to the front page of audiogames.net, one of the main purposes of this site is to promote audiogames both among the VI and the sighted individuals. Now, if it had been an independent forum with a separate host and its own rules, the moderators could have done as much to close all the 10,000 plus topics spread out neatly over about 14 plus years and no one would have been able to do a thing about it. as this forum belongs to audiogames.net, and caters to the audiogaming community and not just its members, I think the moderators should hold a bit of consideration towards the community as a whole. the current system of bans or the severity of warnings are internal matters which the moderators are supposed to work out among themselves, but seriously, looking at various forum rooms in a nutshell and finding dozens of recently closed topics is what makes the atmosphere comparatively toxic for someone who intends to visit the forum once in a while, or create an account to become a member (including a potential sighted gamer or developer). in other words, there are other ways to stop the fire from spreading out and I respectfully disagree about closing/locking a thread being a plausible means to do so. if the moderators are able to delete and edit posts, why not considering editing the original post to reflect their position, or delete certain phrases from a post, or the posts themselves, or entire topics when the matter gets out of hand? what I'm trying to put out here is closing a thread represents putting a lid on the topic, making it impossible for rest of the members to reply on that topic. such closed threads being visible once every 500 topics is a thing, but encountering them more than a couple of times per page suggests that something horrible is going on. coming back to the example from post 28, you don't start closing down businesses and establishments just because a group of criminals decided to show up and make the places insecure. when the same is criticized, the enforcement officials blame the citizens one way or the other and fail to realize the actual motive behind such criticism at first place. I'm not trying to disregard what the moderators have done but as a member of a community, it doesn't do well to see every 4 out of 50 topics closed across various rooms just because a group of people could not be handed out harsher punishments. looking at this particular topic, it probably needed to be dealt with, but show the topic to a sighted game developer who intends to be a part of this community as a potential developer, and you get how damaging the action and the moderation post might come across to someone who is not aware about those members in particular. you can't just keep on doing what is dictated by good/bad faith, and ignore the rest of the bystanders who did not yet contemplate entering your bar, eg a particular thread. this is not about a single topic; there have been far more closed threads in recent past. if one takes the defense of stating an increase in number of people who cause fire, I'm certain that the same kind of people used to post on the topics 10 years ago; and there was rarely a closed thread. back then, the moderators had mentioned the fact that games are indeed played by teenagers the most; they deserve to be a part of the forums. unfortunately, things have spiraled down to a point where there are more than 50 different topics concerning a user's behavior, although he ultimately got banned. As a bottom line, please don't curtail free speech. please don't restrict people's ability to post on the forum by closing dozens of topics. please don't make the forum a bigger mess eventually encouraging potential visitors and developers to view the forum in a bad light.and, that is all.edit: for the heck of it, I re-read post 1 through 10 of the topic and nothing suggests a possible flame war. there was certainly a bit of hostile tone but I don't see how the poster intends to force people to use
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-31
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Hi,@Jayde and othersThe question of good faith/bad faith is subject to variation of judgement as you can't define an action as done in good faith or bad faith without fully realizing the intentions of the original poster; although the points raised in post 28 have been agreed by at least 2 other members, which suggests they had been logical to a great extent. If someone wants to avoid double standards, a viable way is to stop shielding a bunch of members for the sake of the entire community. to explain further, under current circumstances and depending on his own judgement, Jayde, demonstrating the best of his intentions closed the thread in order to avoid further heat and confrontation. since most of you guys are regular visitors on this forum, it may not count as something entirely odd and off the shelf. but think of the bigger picture for an instance. according to the front page of audiogames.net, one of the main purposes of this site is to promote audiogames both among the VI and the sighted individuals. Now, if it had been an independent forum with a separate host and its own rules, the moderators could have done as much to close all the 10,000 plus topics spread out neatly over about 14 plus years and no one would have been able to do a thing about it. as this forum belongs to audiogames.net, and caters to the audiogaming community and not just its members, I think the moderators should hold a bit of consideration towards the community as a whole. the current system of bans or the severity of warnings are internal matters which the moderators are supposed to work out among themselves, but seriously, looking at various forum rooms in a nutshell and finding dozens of recently closed topics is what makes the atmosphere comparatively toxic for someone who intends to visit the forum once in a while, or create an account to become a member (including a potential sighted gamer or developer). in other words, there are other ways to stop the fire from spreading out and I respectfully disagree about closing/locking a thread being a plausible means to do so. if the moderators are able to delete and edit posts, why not considering editing the original post to reflect their position, or delete certain phrases from a post, or the posts themselves, or entire topics when the matter gets out of hand? what I'm trying to put out here is closing a thread represents putting a lid on the topic, making it impossible for rest of the members to reply on that topic. such closed threads being visible once every 500 topics is a thing, but encountering them more than a couple of times per page suggests that something horrible is going on. coming back to the example from post 28, you don't start closing down businesses and establishments just because a group of criminals decided to show up and make the places insecure. when the same is criticized, the enforcement officials blame the citizens one way or the other and fail to realize the actual motive behind such criticism at first place. I'm not trying to disregard what the moderators have done but as a member of a community, it doesn't do well to see every 4 out of 50 topics closed across various rooms just because a group of people could not be handed out harsher punishments. looking at this particular topic, it probably needed to be dealt with, but show the topic to a sighted game developer who intends to be a part of this community as a potential developer, and you get how damaging the action and the moderation post might come across to someone who is not aware about those members in particular. you can't just keep on doing what is dictated by good/bad faith, and ignore the rest of the bystanders who did not yet contemplate entering your bar, eg a particular thread. this is not about a single topic; there have been far more closed threads in recent past. if one takes the defense of stating an increase in number of people who cause fire, I'm certain that the same kind of people used to post on the topics 10 years ago; and there was rarely a closed thread. back then, the moderators had mentioned the fact that games are indeed played by teenagers the most; they deserve to be a part of the forums. unfortunately, things have spiraled down to a point where there are more than 50 different topics concerning a user's behavior, although he ultimately got banned. As a bottom line, please don't curtail free speech. please don't restrict people's ability to post on the forum by closing dozens of topics. please don't make the forum a bigger mess eventually encouraging potential visitors and developers to view the forum in a bad light.and, that is all. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423937/#p423937 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Okay, getting mighty sick of this. Speaking as a user here, not as a mod, because I do not trust myself in this moment to use clear judgment as a moderator.MasterOfDeath, it has been explained to you literally over half a dozen times now that Simter's differing opinion is not the issue. Seriously. Not the issue. Have I said that enough yet? Not. The. Issue.The problem was1. He's been warned a couple of times already this month for stirring the pot2. He brought up a topic that already had some fire in it and3. The way he phrased his post was rather confrontational. Jack has done a very good job of taking it apart for you. I urge you to reread, very carefully, just what simter said.At this point, I feel that you're acting in bad faith, deliberately misrepresenting the point in order to make my actions (since it was me who acted against Simter here) look worse. This is not the first time you have made attempts to undermine me. Now here's the thing. I am neither power-hungry nor particularly afraid of the opinion of one person. I know that, barring some really bad choices early on, I've done a fairly good job here. I am not threatened by you. But at this point, I have definitely reached a point where I am feeling personally attacked. You are ignoring virtually every point made in defense of my actions to cling to the "simter is being warned because his opinion is different" narrative. I was tempted for awhile to give you some sort of benefit of the doubt - you are from Hungary, are you not? there may be a language barrier at play here - but the more time goes by, the less inclined I am to do this.At this point, I am walking out of this topic, and unless called upon directly to do so, I am not coming back in. I feel I've taken just about enough misinformation and undeserved fire from you.Please note that I am not dismissing everyone's issues in one fell swoop. Some good points have been raised herein, and I am not ignoring or dismissing those opinions and points of view. I've merely hit a point where I feel that this conversation has devolved into thinly veiled agenda on one side, and constant needless defense on the other. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423913/#p423913 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-31
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Don't you think it's a bit childish that you think one single guy, just one, can enforce the whole community to use a particular version of skype or anything? Do you think a single guy, without protection or any support, an guide you by your nose? What could he do against you if you don't do what he wants? Will he kill you, seriously?So literally he will get banned cause he is trying to change the community's opinion. Huh. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423896/#p423896 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I think the clear cut answer is that warnings in effect have a set expiration time the instant they are created, and nothing can change that. Thus, if a change is to be made to the expiration time of warnings, even a warning which is given one microsecond prior to the instant the new rule goes into effect should have the old expiration time, and should expire at the end of that old time, even though newer warnings given since that time will have the new expiration time.In a community like this, you can't make an announcement like "At midnight on such and such a date, warnings will last for X amount of time." That's in effect also saying, "If you want to do stuff that's likely to get you a warning, you'd better do it and have us see it and issue you warnings before that time. Then again, we might just wait to issue all new warnings until the new rule takes effect." URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423795/#p423795 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Whether or not people are deliberately trying to get around the warning system, I'm not entirely sure. That gets stretchy.What I do know is that Simter has received three warnings in the last month, and I believe it is time to talk to the list to see how to proceed from here. I do not think he should be just banned out of hand, but at the same time, firmness is definitely a good thing, and it seems as if many people (if not all) agree that some of what's been going on has definitely been done in bad faith, so the community failure clause may apply.Ironcross, my bit about people being unable to deal with my ability to stand up for myself or whatnot...it's merely conjecture. As I also said, I'm struggling to find a reason that someone can be in favour of more leniency and less leniency in precisely the same instance. It makes no sense to me, even after your explanation, which raises far more questions than it answers I'm afraid. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423791/#p423791 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read @35, are you suggesting what I think your suggesting (that these repeat offenders are taking advantage of the fact that warnings expire after a period of time)? It seems that way... URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423784/#p423784 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Exactly. The only reason I have not banned Simter at this point is because two of three warnings there occurred before that protocol change. That's about it. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423782/#p423782 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read *sigh* There's always one. OR two. Or three. Always a few that can't just let it go. There was nothing destructive about what the Jayde did to close that topic. The result was not so much the topic itself, so much as it was Simter trying to force the community over to an upgrade just because of some idiots who use the fork command because apparently they have nothing better to do. Which affects probably 1% of the entire Skype population. And then you had people like me, who had legitimate questions to ask (take the skype 8 on the mac deal) which is a much more serious issue than a few bored-to-death kids playing dirty. Imagine the irritation when someone has a legitimate question to ask about skype 7, but 99% of the skype 7 topics are all either the forking cult, or the victims who could've shown less idiocy and not added those people they didn't know. Imagine the irritation when legitimate skype 7 question topics are likely to get skipped past because quite frankly, we're all fed up with the forking topics, and the general stigma surrounding skype 7, that I assure you there are some users who probably skip any topic mentioning Skype 7 because it's another case of jese, here we go again.See how the unproductive discussion can be futile, unnecessary, and simply unneeded? And when it's asinine juveniles who are repeat offenders involved in creating such topics, you see where a mod can feel the urge to say enough is enough?Why are people even bickering over this anyway? No one was hurt through the closing of the topic, in fact just a grain of sanity was hoped to be restored, but wasn't. And why the hell do people need to have the last word? I don't even care about that, the rest of us are only concerned about restoring the sanity here. And for the record, not everything needs to suddenly turn into an argument, much less an argument worth winning. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423713/#p423713 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read *sigh* There's always one. OR two. Or three. Always a few that can't just let it go. There was nothing destructive about what the Jayde did to close that topic. The result was not so much the topic itself, so much as it was Simter trying to force the community over to an upgrade just because of some idiots who use the fork command because apparently they have nothing better to do. Which affects probably 1% of the entire Skype population. And then you had people like me, who had legitimate questions to ask (take the skype 8 on the mac deal) which is a much more serious issue than a few bored-to-death kids playing dirty. Imagine the irritation when someone has a legitimate question to ask about skype 7, but 99% of the skype 7 topics are all either the forking cult, or the victims who could've shown less idiocy and not add ed those people they didn't know. Imagine the irritation when legitimate skype 7 question topics are likely to get skipped past because quite frankly, we're all fed up with the forking topics, and the general stigma surrounding skype 7, that I assure you there are some users who probably skip any topic mentioning Skype 7 because it's another case of jese, here we go again.See how the unproductive discussion can be futile, unnecessary, and simply unneeded? And when it's asinine juveniles who are repeat offender involved in creating such topic, you see where a mod can feel the urge to say enough is enough?Why are people even bickering over this anyway? No one was hurt through the closing of the topic, in fact just a grain of sanity was hoped to be restored, but wasn't. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423713/#p423713 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read So let me get this straight.You flipped out because I came in wielding a big stick many moons ago. I adopted a softer touch because I recognized the harm I'd done, and now even that is being demonized as too soft. Seriously, guys. I get what you're saying, but there is a point where it feels like we can't win, no matter what we do. I am picturing an alternate timeline where much more firmness was being employed and the same crowd is yelling for blood because they're being oppressed.Is my action against Simter too harsh or not, Ironcross? Because in one breath you're saying it's too strong, that his topic was doing no harm. And in the next, you're out here saying we need to crack down more firmly on people who are acting in bad faith. So which is it?In fact, that's half a rhetorical question, a thought experiment, if you will. Because it very clearly demonstrates the point I'm driving at. We just can't win.Past a certain point, there are elements of a community which will find fault no matter what happens. If we try to be understanding without totally compromising the rules, we're being too soft. If we crack down and close topics and issue warnings when people are acting in bad faith trying to stir up drama, we're suddenly robbing you of free speech, interfering with your ability to express negative opinions and generally just not following our own rules.Or maybe the real issue is me. Maybe a few of you really can't get past the fact that I can hold my own in a discussion, can back myself up, and can be extremely decisive and fast-acting when the need calls for it. Perhaps this is intimidating or scary. Perhaps you are remembering early November, when I badly mishandled a crisis, and you can't get over it. Perhaps there is straight-up personal bias at play, where you feel it is permissible to hold me (and by extension, the rest of the mod team) to an impossibly high standard simply because we represent a source of authority.I'll be honest. I'm struggling to find an explanation, a reasonable way to rationalize the fact that some of you seem to want two polar opposite styles of moderation from the panel in general and from me in this particular instance. But I need to say this:Past a certain point, I also don't care. I know on a gut level that I cannot please everyone. I will try hard to do what is best for the community, and will also try hard to explain why I do the things I do, because I am not super friendly with authority either, believe it or not. I think everyone is owed the benefit of the doubt, at least at first, when it comes to understanding why. But I also know that there is no way to please everyone. And I'm not going to lose sleep over a vocal minority who can't get its priorities and its desires straight. And I urge the rest of the staff team, upon seeing this, to bear in mind the same point. We cannot possibly cater to everyone's wishes all at once, and we needn't try. The aim here is the betterment of the community as a whole. The aim is accountability wherever possible, but that does not necessarily mean wasting hours backtracking and defending when said vocal minority becomes loud, demanding, entitled or just plain resistant. If you have strong points to make regarding our style of administration, that's well and good, and we'll hear them. We're listening (or at least, I am, and I strongly suspect that goes for the rest of the team as well). But before you open your mouth, put pen to paper or decide to bring forth criticism, remember that every question you ask and every point you raise has an impact, however small, on the community, and if your aim truly is to help the community (that good faith action I spoke of in a previous post), then you owe the community the benefit of a little reflection and consideration before posting. After doing so, you may still feel like you have something to say, and at that point, go for it. But greater good matters to everyone, not just the staff team. If you are, in fact, trying to be a positive part of this community, then there is such a thing as deciding which battles to fight and which not to. And I think, in all the fervour lately, some of you have forgotten this. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423699/#p423699 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read @28 agreed on all points.I had started writing this earlier in this particular thread, but I decided not to. Since someone's already went there though, I think I will. This current climate of cautions, more warnings than you can shake a stick at, and so many bans before the thing becomes permanent, it's not doing anyone any favors. Just ask yourself the question, "Is what we're doing right now working", well, I don't think it is. If the mods don't want so much drama, crack down on the perpetrators. Start dropping the hammer on people, and stop being so tolerant to it. Deal with the people who need dealing with, like the ones who go around starting it. You can't blame the rest of us for getting our backs up at someone because they go around starting crap all the time, it gets old. Sure, there's a bit of tolerance, then trying to say in a polite way that it's not cool what they're doing, and they continue anyway. That's how I see the community failure clause working. Take these people who need it, turn them towards the door, give a little shove, and say don't let it hitcha where the good lord splitcha. The best communities I've seen online have the quickest acting, non-apologetic mods. They don't go around acting like the gestapo either. It's not like they're like, I don't like that your name is teal, ban hammer time. They wait for the person to break a rule and bam. On here I get that's not exactly practical. We should have a certain bit of understanding for the language barrier that a lot of our eastern european or middle east or whereever else you're from people are having. That's not, and should not be infinite though. If they were concerned, they would ask for a translation, they would try to google translate it and if that didn't make things clear enough, they'd ask someone who was multilingual to help out. Also, there is the aspect of well, do you think if I went on a Russian site and broke the rules, that they'd be like oh its cool bro no probls, I get you're not Russian, so here, I'll just let you off with a caution this time. Hell to the naw. I'm not saying that to justify banning people who truly don't understand - I think we can be a bit better than that - but just to show I doubt very much the sentiment is strong in other places.If this place is going to ever get back to a spot where the mods can check in every few weeks or so, then this will have to happen, because what is going on right now isn't working. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423691/#p423691 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Sid, I urge you to reread Nocturnis's original post, as well as some of the others that have been presented in order to explain things.The change in language is simply a matter of you seeing patterns or trends where they do not exist. The use of "I" and "we" has occurred in the past without anyone raising an eyebrow. I did act without consulting the mod team first, and it says in the rules that this may occur. Consensus isn't required unless the action is larger-scale.It also may do well to consider that locked threads have more to do with forum members than they do with the attitudes of the current staff team. The overall tone of the forum has been shifting during the last couple of years. We used to go months without any drama, and now we have to check up on things virtually every day, lest one end up with threads with sixty to seventy posts of people bickering at one another.I am also wondering if the method in which you seem to be questioning what's going on is indeed happening in good faith. I recognize that you have some concerns, but a few of these feel a little cobbled together, at least for me. For instance, the language issue, and the profligacy of closed topics, and the way we're handling folks like Simter and others. In fact, it almost feels like you're simultaneously asking for faster, firmer crackdown and even greater explanation and justification of our actions. Please refer to the oft-raised point that sometimes, a specific rule is not broken in a really clear-cut way, but behaviour clearly represents bad faith and an attempt to stir things up. The fact is this: we will never have rules that account for absolutely everything. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423659/#p423659 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,I did not want this topic to turn the way it had turned out, but we're relatively missing the original points.I would like to know from the moderators under which particular community rules, regulations or implied guidelines the user had been issued a warning and the thread permanently closed?do each moderator represent himself/herself while declaring moderations?do the actions of a single moderator indicate an absence of representation among the moderation team as evident from "I", "i'm", or "me", rather than "we", or "us", or "'ed"?had an ordinary user posted a general thread regarding the subject, is it highly likely the thread would be locked out as well, on the pretext of the matter being discussed earlier?now, what I was intending to find out is, if we look at the scenario from the community point of view, and in case a user was being confrontational about the issue in previous threads, why the urgency to conduct a preemptive strike on the entire topic instead of warning the user within a personal capacity. as he seems to have received a warning anyway, he is expected to abide by the community rules or face further consequences. in real life, does your police force, on spotting a known offender, come out and swoop down on the place and evacuate the entire building including the offender, instead of swooping down on the offender and ushering him out of the building itself? actually, the question is not about the authenticity of the moderators intentions; it is about the approach adopted to exert the intentions. looking at the above example, suppose a new customer is about to set his foot on the bar which is being evacuated along with the offender, will the customer be further inclined to visit that place in future? Will the customer ever encourage or promote the place on being asked by his contacts? Had the police force surrounded the offender himself and given him blatent warning with a series of hostile glares demonstrating a "no fucking around" policy, wouldn't the citezens admire the police force and feel secure?now, if we look closely, the users of this type (offenders as per the above example) might enter another topic, spread toxic substances, and the topic is likely to be locked in response. do that particular action act as a deterrent to users who don't learn from their misadventures? (unlikely)also, do we really need to cling on to their boots with that amount of desperation?as of recent, another such user was banned as far as I'm aware, but it is equally significant to look at the amount of time and effort exhausted in order to get him where he belongs. I'm not trying to come down on these people; they deserve to be a part of the community as well, but this forum can't afford the extreme amount of tollerence towards the offenders.on one hand, the current moderators act out of their own judgements and preferences to deem a discussion not fit for the forum based on an anticipated behavior of a single user or a group of users, on the other hand, they lock the thread for everyone and further shield such confrontational users because there is nothing to stop them from going on another thread, spoil the thread, and get it closed for rest of the members. I understand that the moderators would prefer a maximum amount of patience before issuing official warnings and handing out temporary and permanent bans to users, but going soft on them had produced a forum which has far more closed threads on a single page compared to at least out of 10 similar pages 5 years ago; which suggests something is wrong. Also, as far as past moderators are concerned, they had opened their backpacks, pulled their moderation hats and wore them before going on with their moderation business, and removed the hat and put it back in the backpack as soon as the moderation business was carried out. this behavior seriously helped them to separate their personal preferences and desires from the moderation duties. if we look at the kind of words used in the message, I'm afraid that phrases like "death and beyond", "resulted in me essentially confronting people", "why the heck", "Rather than re-engage that discussion", "to me at least", "bordering on personal attack, not just toward myself but toward others as well", "You think you have the right to", "Speaking personally, this is getting very tiresome", "it's warning time", "And I'm locking this thread", "We do not need this discussion right now(with a special emphasis on need)", don't seem to be coming from an actual moderator who is appointed for the benefit of the forum and the community at large.In essence, it is practically hard to find that level of personalized conten
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,I did not want this topic to turn the way it had turned out, but we're relatively missing the original points.I would like to know from the moderators under which particular community rules, regulations or implied guidelines the user had been issued a warning and the thread permanently closed?do each moderator represent himself/herself while declaring moderations?do the actions of a single moderator indicate an absence of representation among the moderation team as evident from "I", "i'm", or "me", rather than "we", or "us", or "'ed"?had an ordinary user posted a general thread regarding the subject, is it highly likely the thread would be locked out as well, on the pretext of the matter being discussed earlier?now, what I was intending to find out is, if we look at the scenario from the community point of view, and in case a user was being confrontational about the issue in previous threads, why the urgency to conduct a preemptive strike on the entire topic instead of warning the user within a personal capacity. as he seems to have received a warning anyway, he is expected to abide by the community rules or face further consequences. in real life, does your police force, on spotting a known offender, come out and swoop down on the place and evacuate the entire building including the offender, instead of swooping down on the offender and ushering him out of the building itself? actually, the question is not about the authenticity of the moderators intentions; it is about the approach adopted to exert the intentions. looking at the above example, suppose a new customer is about to set his foot on the bar which is being evacuated along with the offender, will the customer be further inclined to visit that place in future? Will the customer ever encourage or promote the place on being asked by his contacts? Had the police force surrounded the offender himself and given him blatent warning with a series of hostile glares demonstrating a "no fucking around" policy, wouldn't the citezens admire the police force and feel secure?now, if we look closely, the users of this type (offenders as per the above example) might enter another topic, spread toxic substances, and the topic is likely to be locked in response. do that particular action act as a deterrent to users who don't learn from their misadventures? (unlikely)also, do we really need to cling on to their boots with that amount of desperation?as of recent, another such user was banned as far as I'm aware, but it is equally significant to look at the amount of time and effort exhausted in order to get him where he belongs. I'm not trying to come down on these people; they deserve to be a part of the community as well, but this forum can't afford the extreme amount of tollerence towards the offenders.on one hand, the current moderators act out of their own judgements and preferences to deem a discussion not fit for the forum based on an anticipated behavior of a single user or a group of users, on the other hand, they lock the thread for everyone and further shield such confrontational users because there is nothing to stop them from going on another thread, spoil the thread, and get it closed for rest of the members. I understand that the moderators would prefer a maximum amount of patience before issuing official warnings and handing out temporary and permanent bans to users, but going soft on them had produced a forum which has far more closed threads on a single page compared to at least out of 10 similar pages 5 years ago; which suggests something is wrong. Also, as far as past moderators are concerned, they had opened their backpacks, pulled their moderation hats and wore them before going on with their moderation business, and removed the hat and put it back in the backpack as soon as the moderation business was carried out. this behavior seriously helped them to separate their personal preferences and desires from the moderation duties. if we look at the kind of words used in the message, I'm afraid that phrases like "death and beyond", "resulted in me essentially confronting people", "why the heck", "Rather than re-engage that discussion", "to me at least", "bordering on personal attack, not just toward myself but toward others as well", "You think you have the right to", "Speaking personally, this is getting very tiresome", "it's warning time", "And I'm locking this thread", "We do not need this discussion right now(with a special emphasis on need)", don't seem to be coming from an actual moderator who is appointed for the benefit of the forum and the community at large.In essence, it is practically hard to find that level of personalized conten
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Agreed, 28. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423633/#p423633 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,I did not want this topic to turn the way it had turned out, but we're relatively missing the original points.I would like to know from the moderators under which particular community rules, regulations or implied guidelines the user had been issued a warning and the thread permanently closed?do each moderator represent himself/herself while declaring moderations?do the actions of a single moderator indicate an absence of representation among the moderation team as evident from "I", "i'm", or "me", rather than "we", or "us", or "'ed"?had an ordinary user posted a general thread regarding the subject, is it highly likely the thread would be locked out as well, on the pretext of the matter being discussed earlier?now, what I was intending to find out is, if we look at the scenario from the community point of view, and in case a user was being confrontational about the issue in previous threads, why the urgency to conduct a preemptive strike on the entire topic instead of warning the user within a personal capacity. as he seems to have received a warning anyway, he is expected to abide by the community rules or face further consequences. in real life, does your police force, on spotting a known offender, come out and swoop down on the place and evacuate the entire building including the offender, instead of swooping down on the offender and ushering him out of the building itself? actually, the question is not about the authenticity of the moderators intentions; it is about the approach adopted to exert the intentions. looking at the above example, suppose a new customer is about to set his foot on the bar which is being evacuated along with the offender, will the customer be further inclined to visit that place in future? Will the customer ever encourage or promote the place on being asked by his contacts? Had the police force surrounded the offender himself and given him blatent warning with a series of hostile glares demonstrating a "no fucking around" policy, wouldn't the citezens admire the police force and felt secure?now, if we look closely, the users of this type (offenders as per the above example) might enter another topic, spread toxic substances, and the topic is likely to be locked in response. do that particular action act as a deterrent to users who don't learn from their misadventures? also, do we really need to cling on to their boots with that amount of desperation?as of recent, another such user was banned as far as I'm aware, but it is equally significant to look at the amount of time and effort exhausted in order to get him where he belongs. I'm not trying to come down on these people; they deserve to be a part of the community as well, but this forum can't afford the extreme amount of tollerence towards the offenders.on one hand, the current moderators act out of their own judgements and preferences to deem a discussion not fit for the forum based on an anticipated behavior of a single user or a group of users, on the other hand, they lock the thread for everyone and further shield such confrontational users because there is nothing to stop them from going on another thread, spoil the thread, and get it closed for rest of the members. I understand that the moderators would prefer a maximum amount of patience before issuing official warnings and handing out temporary and permanent bans to users, but going soft on them had produced a forum which has far more closed threads on a single page compared to at least out of 10 similar pages 5 years ago; which suggests something is wrong. Also, as far as past moderators are concerned, they opened their backpacks, pulled their moderation hats and wore them before going on with their moderation business, and removed the hat and put it back in the backpack as soon as the moderation business was carried out. this behavior seriously helped them to separate their personal preferences and desires from the moderation duties. if we look at the kind of words used in the message, I'm afraid that phrases like "death and beyond", "resulted in me essentially confronting people", "why the heck", "Rather than re-engage that discussion", "to me at least", "bordering on personal attack, not just toward myself but toward others as well", "You think you have the right to", "Speaking personally, this is getting very tiresome", "it's warning time", "And I'm locking this thread", "We do not need this discussion right now(with a special emphasis on need)", don't seem to be coming from an actual moderator who is appointed for the benefit of the forum and the community at large.In essence, it is practically hard to find that level of personalized content in a si
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-30
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : sid512 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read hi,I did not want this topic to turn the way it had turned out, but we're relatively missing the original points.I would like to know from the moderators under which particular community rules, regulations or implied guidelines the user had been issued a warning and the thread permanently closed?do each moderator represent himself/herself while declaring moderations?do the actions of a single moderator indicate an absence of representation among the moderation team as evident from "I", "i'm", or "me", rather than "we", or "us", or "'ed"?had an ordinary user posted a general thread regarding the subject, is it highly likely the thread would be locked out as well, on the pretext of the matter being discussed earlier?now, what I was intending to find out is, if we look at the scenario from the community point of view, and in case a user was being confrontational about the issue in previous threads, why the urgency to conduct a preemptive strike on the entire topic instead of warning the user within a personal capacity. as he seems to have received a warning anyway, he is expected to abide by the community rules or face further consequences. in real life, does your police force, on spotting a known offender, come out and swoop down on the place and evacuate the entire building including the offender, instead of swooping down on the offender and ushering him out of the building itself? actually, the question is not about the authenticity of the moderators intentions; it is about the approach adopted to exert the intentions. looking at the above example, suppose a new customer is about to set his foot on the bar which is being evacuated along with the offender, will the customer be further inclined to visit that place in future? Will the customer ever encourage or promote the place on being asked by his contacts? Had the police force surrounded the offender himself and given him blatent warning with a series of hostile glares demonstrating a "no fucking around" policy, wouldn't the citezens admire the police force and felt secure?now, if we look closely, the users of this type (offenders as per the above example) might enter another topic, spread toxic substances, and the topic is likely to be locked in response. do that particular action act as a deterrent to users who don't learn from their misadventures? also, do we really need to cling on to their boots with that amount of desperation?as of recent, another such user was banned as far as I'm aware, but it is equally significant to look at the amount of time and effort exhausted in order to get him where he belongs. I'm not trying to come down on these people; they deserve to be a part of the community as well, but this forum can't afford the extreme amount of tollerence towards the offenders.on one hand, the current moderators act out of their own judgements and preferences to deem a discussion not fit for the forum based on an anticipated behavior of a single user or a group of users, on the other hand, they lock the thread for everyone and further shield such confrontational users because there is nothing to stop them from going on another thread, spoil the thread, and get it closed for rest of the members. I understand that the moderators would prefer a maximum amount of patience before issuing official warnings and handing out temporary and permanent bans to users, but going soft on them had produced a forum which has far more closed threads on a single page compared to at least out of 10 similar pages 5 years ago; which suggests something is wrong. Also, as far as past moderators are concerned, they opened their backpacks, pulled their moderation hats and wore them before going on with their moderation business, and removed the hat and put it back in the backpack as soon as the moderation business was carried out. this behavior seriously helped them to separate their personal preferences and desires from the moderation duties. if we look at the kind of words used in the message, I'm afraid that phrases like "death and beyond", "resulted in me essentially confronting people", "why the heck", "Rather than re-engage that discussion", "to me at least", "bordering on personal attack, not just toward myself but toward others as well", "You think you have the right to", "Speaking personally, this is getting very tiresome", "it's warning time", "And I'm locking this thread", "We do not need this discussion right now(with a special emphasis on need)", don't seem to be coming from an actual moderator who is appointed for the benefit of the forum and the community at large.In essence, it is practically hard to find that level of personalized content in a single mod
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-29
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Imho there's another kind of bad faith, which we see around here from time to time. Asking a question that seems innocent enough at face value, when the question you really want answered is against forum rules, or against the wishes of the community, etc. Similar is asking a question and giving a reason to justify your question, when the real reason you want an answer, again, is contrary to that stated, and against forum rules, etc.Examples: Several days ago, Mahdi-Abedi asked, in general terms, "What can I do to prevent people from stealing my game sounds?" Several people responded, figuring what he really wanted to ask but couldn't was, "What can developers do to keep me from stealing sounds?" Or more to the point, "How can I steal sounds?" A similar thing might happen if someone writes something like, "I was developing a game and had a hard drive crash and lost everything. I had saved a compiled version along with its data files somewhere else, but I have no source code or sound files. How do I get that back?" Again, this could be a legitimate call for help, but it could also be an attempted grab for decryption/decompilation information so they can rip off other games.An example of asking the right question for the wrong reason might be if someone asked, "How and where is the authorization for A Hero's Call stored? I want to back it up to my external drive in case my main drive ever crashes." This is fair enough on the face of it, but perhaps what they really want to say but can't because of forum rules is, "I want to make a copy of my authorization and give it to a friend without having to pay for another license." URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423540/#p423540 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Alright, for MasterOfDeath's sake and possibly others, let's break this down shall we?Alright, admittedly the topic name on its own "Why are people still using Skype 7?" doesn't seem all that bad...if it was a different person, and if the discussion, if one could call it that, hadn't happened before. And now for the post. Right off the bat...Simter wrote:Hi. This is my last try to get adleast one part of the community back to right.There's the hint that he's trying to pus h the community to use what he thinks is best or be damned. Credibility gone. Alright, moving on...simter wrote:Why are so many people of you still using skype 7 and giving out copies of it? I fucking hate it. The only thing we get out of it are forks and connectivity problems, only because of people's own lack of common sense, adding contacts they don't know. By the way, this is another opportunity to rehash this lesson, forks may be destructive, but they sure as hell aren't the worst thing that can happen - there are worse things, such as Facebook hacks, that could literally steal your identity. Trust me on this one as it's happened to me and others (yes I still begrudgingly use the thing) my account started sending messages that said, do me a favor please, and apparently upon replying the hacker had sent a link to a supposed charity page, but it probably collected a lot more personal data than that and that could have some serious repercussions. So just be careful who you add and never click on links without examining the source and where the trail leads, and we'll be all good. Alright, what else is skype 7 supposedly guilty of? simter wrote:anoying notifications for any single little event what seriusly no one needs,which you can turn off, by the way. simter wrote:a crappy peace of shit called skype api.Are you, serious with me right now? If you're talking about SkypeKit, that's long gone. GW Connect and Skype Talking have unfortunately jumped the shark 3 years ago. Alright, we're done with the baseless accusations section, what else do we have? simter wrote:While there is a great version with no adds, much easyer to use, and the best is no more /fork spam. Because it just no longer exists.1. Not only is /fork gone, but /leave is gone too. So, I may not have added someone I don't trust, but someone else may still have my contact or have kept down my info, and add me in those big large more than 100 person group calls. I used to be able to /leave on those. With Skype 8, it appears that all the slash commands are gone. And no, I highly doubt it was because of the /fork idiocy.2. As a mac user, Skype 8 hits me the hardest, so keep enjoying the freedom of NVDA addons and Narrator improvement, I'm stuck with the mac because I paid too much to let the thing go, and running windows stand-alone won't cut it as there are, somehow, some good things about the mac that I happen to hold on to (particularly in the production space.) So just because Skype 8 may be so much easier for you does not mean it's easier for everyone. Plus, again, it's none of your concern what the rest of us use, is the message many have been trying to get to him.Now here is where the borderline accusation hits.simter wrote:So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork.Excuse me, but giving out copies of Skype 7 does not make you automatically responsible for the next fork. Unless of course the same person who gives out a copy of Skype 7 is the person that starts the fork, but that's a different story and I doubt that's where you were going.and as Jayde stated, this wasn't the first time Simter was trying to instigate a fight through this, and the last time he did this, he pissed off many users who were seriously affected by this (me included) as well as many people who frankly don't give two shits what some folks in the community want people using. It, just, isn't, necessary. So, the provocative nature of the topic, combined with the fact he is a repeat offender, is likely the reason jayde decided to close this topic. Are we good now? URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423498/#p423498 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read 1. Simter had already been bandwagoning the switch to skype 8 as a good thing, and talking about how people who don't switch are foolish, and how happy he will be (or in one case, how happy he was) when skype 7 died. This is confrontational; not warning-worthy on its own, but needlessly confrontational.2. This topic had come up already, and had already ruffled feathers.3. In the now-closed topic, other people were already saying things like "none of your business" and variations on "ugh, this again?". So no, I don't believe Simter for a moment was actually trying to gauge opinions. He was trashing skype 7 and trying to push people to switch. He was stirring up the fire to see what would happen. I can see no other explanation than this one. When it walks like a duck, flaps like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are pretty good it's a duck. I'm thirty-five years old. I'm not young and I'm not stupid. Please believe me when I say that I understand the difference between good faith and bad faith.4. You keep missing this big picture thing, and I'm about done arguing with you over it. At this point, I am fairly convinced that nothing I say is going to change your mind, so i'm going to have to content myself with the fact that you just. don't. get it.For one more piece of clarity for others, however, I'd like to talk just a bit about good faith and bad faith.A good faith argument or point of view is when you declare something, and it's pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. You ask a question because you really do want the answer. You make a point because you really do have something to say, and it has nothing to do with making people upset or blowing smoke to distract from a point you don't like.By contrast, bad faith means the opposite. A bad-faith question might entail one where you really don't want an answer, or are so convinced you have the answer that you're prepared to utterly frog-stomp whosoever gives it to you. A bad-faith argument can be where you attack a point not because of its overall validity, or on viable grounds, but instead because you don't like who said it.Bad faith will apply if, for instance, you start up a firestorm because you're annoyed about a thing or want to push an agenda, and then when confronted on it, you're like, "Hey man, I didn't mean anything. Chill.".I am firmly convinced that Simter was guilty of bad faith reasoning here. He did not, in my estimation, start that skype topic because he wanted to bitch about forks, because he'd been affected and was annoyed (totally legitimate, by the way, as no one wants to be harassed). He didn't start this up because he wanted to generate good discussion. He knew the following:1. This had already been tried before, and tempers had already flared, thus were likely to do so again with the same tinder provided2. This forum has had a lot of repeat points/topics/drama brought up, and Simter has been a fringe part of several parts of it3. He is not in a position to tell anyone to upgrade or use what he uses, as no one has the right to do that4. He wants skype 7 to die, and it's not dead, and it's clearly upsetting him for some reason, and5. Simter speaks and understands the language well enough to know what he's trying to sayTherefore, with all those things borne in mind, Simter has no plausible deniability. If he were to claim that he didn't mean harm, it's not plausible. And those of you who claim the topic was doing no harm...same deal. I strongly disagree with you. I firmly believe it was placed there to start a fire, so I put it out.If you don't like that, there's not much I can do. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423488/#p423488 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read @23, I must disagree. While I stand by my submission that the warning should be redacted (because I do believe that was hasty), and while I do believe reopening the topic mightbring some interesting results, the topic also did bring confrontation with it. All you need do is go read it and see how close to negative it was getting near the end. Again, I'm warning you (as a user) to stop your attacks; you are, quite literally, boardering on character assassination of Jade's character. I'm not sure what your trying to do but your not accomplishing it, and your instead proving to the community that you can't take a hint and stop attacking people when there is no particular reason for it and the issue has been explained to you countless times. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423482/#p423482 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-29
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Jayde. Again you said what i meant, "it just looked like it'll cause harm."Did it cause harm? No. It just looked like that. And the Mason thing is completely different. Of course i would want a mod to come in and lock the topic, but since it would be about a famous drama creator, i also would look at the point like nobody did anything against it, still, even if the whole forum is making a drama about the things that happened recently.And what, you didn't agree with Simter, you stated the opposite, so that also means that you encourage people to agree with you. You are doing the same like Simter, but not that offensively. So you literally moderate him for the thing that you are doing as well. How would we behave good and listen to moderations, when you are just doing the same that they do, and after all you think they were wrong.I respect everyone who has more power than me, in real life too, sometimes maybe more than it would be expected, because sometimes i'm just afraid to talk. But when i have an opinion, i think i have the rights to tell it, and all in all, we are both people, and should be treated the same way. Imagine if for example a leader of a country would listen to only his own mind and maybe to his people, and not the society and the community. That would lead to a complete mess.So, the whole thing is not against you, Jayde, if someone else did the same i wouldn't have agreed, too. But i wouldn't allow myself to let my emotions guide me if i were a moderator. Okay, it's easy to say it now, and maybe i would behave the same, i don't know. But i guess if the topic, i mean, that you locked, were next to your statements, you wouldn't have locked it. Sadly this skype thing is a really stupid topic because it always has and will have two sides. But if someone says something that you don't agree with, it doesn't mean that it'll start a war again. It will, for sure, if you lock it with no reason and then people start to complain. But until you wrote that quite dump comment about the thing and locked it, nobody argued. They shared their opinions, and nothing much. In that old topic, unfortunately you were the one who told your opinion quite weirdly, because i guess we weren't this kind of aggressive about which version to use. But this is like a comedy. If you wanna use that old thing, do it, but don't piss off people who have a different opinion. You also said that you will use the thing that you want and nobody will tell you when to switch. And what? It was a topic for people to change opinions, not for conservative ones who will tell their opinions after every single comment, just to state they are right. Maybe you are right, i don't doubt that. But there is a way to tell your opinion once for all, like others did. I guess after your words, nobody told you like heeey switch, switch, it's the best, switch, you are stupid because you are using it, no, nobody did that. In the topic you always refer to, he asked it because he was wondering about people's opinions, and wanted to hear their reasons. It wasn't the beste way to express himself, it is true, indeed. But nobody attacked you personally. That's it. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423464/#p423464 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read And that's where you're dead wrong. You are apparently failing to appreciate the nuances of argument, and of opinion vs. attack.I have argued literally hundreds of times on this forum without resort to any sort of force, whether I had access to that force or not. I rarely engage in personal attacks (I'm certain I have from time to time, but I try extremely hard not to, since it's a bad idea, and I should try to keep my emotions in check wherever I can). I've won many of those arguments, I've lost a few, and I've walked away from virtually all of them without topics having been locked, either by myself or by other members of the staff team. This should demonstrate that I am not guilty of what you're accusing me of.You are, in point of fact, blowing an action out of shape. You continue to mischaracterize what I do, and I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberate smear tactics or a straight-up lack of comprehension on your part. I hate to say it straight out like that, but I'm left with less and less recourse. Over and over again I have said that Simter's disagreement with me was not the reason for my locking his thread. Over and over I have explained that I saw potential harm because this was something of a hot-button topic and it looked like another firestorm was going to come up. I made this distinction based on who was talking (Simter), how he was talking (aggressively) and what he was saying (basically, another round of "we shouldn't have skype 7 anymore because forks"). If this had been the first time ever that this particular opinion had been addressed, or if it had been done differently, I wouldn't have batted an eye, so to speak. But that's not the case. I urge you to take a big picture approach when considering why I did what I did. You seem to be stuck on "Jayde is misusing power", and I'm not. In fact, this is precisely the sort of thing we're here for, to deal with straight-up breach of rules and to squash dissent if it becomes too toxic.In general, difference of opinion can and should be tolerated. Of course it should. But this wasn't going anywhere good. You say that we should be able to argue without using force. Well, should we also be able to argue without resorting to trash-talking? Remember, as well, that other users before this expressed straight-up pleasure that skype 7 was apparently discontinued. If that's not needless confrontation, I don't know what is.How would you feel, for instance, if I started a topic in Off-topic Discussion which went like this. (Full disclosure, I do not actually feel this way, and this example is for illustrative purposes only):Title: Oh man, that Mason guyMessage: You know what? I just gotta get this off my chest. Mason pisses me off. He strikes me as an immature, whiny, entitled kid who can't code and do PR at the same time. Okay fine, maybe he can code things and they don't explode, so that's cool, but I mean, the guy's PR is a nightmare. Someone ought to teach him how to respect his players or he's going to lose them. I'm just sick of the guy, and I wish he'd be gone. When he says he's closing his doors for the last time - really the last time, I mean, none of this back-and-forth crap - I will cheer. Because it's long overdue, I think. Let's just...I dunno, let him choke on his mistakes. Because I will never ever buy anything he makes and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.Now, if I went and posted that, right now, wouldn't you want a mod to come in, close the topic before it started fires, and give me a warning? I know I would. Because even if I have a right to feel that way, and even if I have a right to say that to certain people if it's really how I feel...well, to just slap it on the community results in potential harm. Mason may be upset. Mason supporters may be upset. And at this point, the issues around Mason are well-known. What good is there in poking a sleeping bear, especially if I happened to already have a history of poking sleeping bears? I don't but Simter sort of does. This is where I go back and point at the bit where I said he knew what he was doing. This wasn't some newbie walking in and making another statement with little or no knowledge of what came before.So no, MasterOfDeath. You're missing the point entirely. I urge you to come back and argue points rather than attempt to attack my character without grounds. Failing that, I'd rather you stop and think what you're saying before you say it, since this is not the first time that you have attempted to take shots at me. You will note that I am not enacting any sort of moderator interference against you on this point, even though I find your attacks unjust and a little upsetting. I will not sp
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read And that's where you're dead wrong. You are apparently failing to appreciate the nuances of argument, and of opinion vs. attack.I have argued literally hundreds of times on this forum without resort to any sort of force, whether I had access to that force or not. I rarely engage in personal attacks (I'm certain I have from time to time, but I try extremely hard not to, since it's a bad idea, and I should try to keep my emotions in check wherever I can). I've won many of those arguments, I've lost a few, and I've walked away from virtually all of them without topics having been locked, either by myself or by other members of the staff team. This should demonstrate that I am not guilty of what you're accusing me of.You are, in point of fact, blowing an action out of shape. You continue to mischaracterize what I do, and I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberate smear tactics or a straight-up lack of comprehension on your part. I hate to say it straight out like that, but I'm left with less and less recourse. Over and over again I have said that Simter's disagreement with me was not the reason for my locking his thread. Over and over I have explained that I saw potential harm because this was something of a hot-button topic and it looked like another firestorm was going to come up. I made this distinction based on who was talking (Simter), how he was talking (aggressively) and what he was saying (basically, another round of "we shouldn't have skype 7 anymore because forks"). If this had been the first time ever that this particular opinion had been addressed, or if it had been done differently, I wouldn't have batted an eye, so to speak. But that's not the case. I urge you to take a big picture approach when considering why I did what I did. You seem to be stuck on "Jayde is misusing power", and I'm not. In fact, this is precisely the sort of thing we're here for, tt deal with straight-up breach of rules and to squash dissent if it becomes too toxic.In general, difference of opinion can and should be tolerated. Of course it should. But this wasn't going anywhere good. You say that we should be able to argue without using force. Well, should we also be able to argue without resorting to trash-talking? Remember, as well, that other users before this expressed straight-up pleasure that skype 7 was apparently discontinued. If that's not needless confrontation, I don't know what is.How would you feel, for instance, if I started a topic in Off-topic Discussion which went like thias. (Full disclosure, I do not actually feel this way, and this example is for illustrative purposes only):Title: Oh man, that Mason guyMessage: You know what? I just gotta get this off my chest. Mason pisses me off. He strikes me as an immature, whiny, entitled kid who can't code and do PR at the same time. Okay fine, maybe he can code things and they don't explode, so that's cool, but I mean, the guy's PR is a nightmare. Someone ought to teach him how to respect his players or he's going to lose them. I'm just sick of the guy, and I wish he'd be gone. When he says he's closing his doors for the last time - really the last time, I mean, none of this back-and-forth crap - I will cheer. Because it's long overdue, I think. Let's just...I dunno, let him choke on his mistakes. Because I will never ever buy anything he makes and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.Now, if I went and posted that, right now, wouldn't you want a mod to come in, close the topic before it started fires, and give me a warning? I know I would. Because even if I have a right to feel that way, and even if I have a right to say that to certain people if it's really how I feel...well, to just slap it on the community results in potential harm. Mason may be upset. Mason supporters may be upset. And at this point, the issues around Mason are well-known. What good is there is poking a sleeping bear, especially if I happened to already have a history of poking sleeping bears? I don't but Simter sort of does. This is where I go back and point at the bit where I said he knew what he was doing. This wasn't some newbie walking in and making another statement with little or no knowledge of what came before.So no, MasterOfDeath. You're missing the point entirely. I urge you to come back and argue points rather than attempt to attack my character without grounds. Failing that, I'd rather you stop and think what you're saying before you say it, since this is not the first time that you have attempted to take shots at me. You will note that I am not enacting any sort of moderator interference against you on this point, even though I find your attacks unjust and a little upsetting. I will not spea
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-29
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read This is so childish, guys. Oh i don't like something, let's lock it and do not ever give a chance to discuss the thing, or do not ever let the two groups convince eachother. This smells like real life, when there are two parties and the stronger one, who gained the right powers for it, try to block the other's opinion as much as they can. I had a teacher, who always said, if you cannot argue without showing your force and that you have power, then your reasons won't be clear as well. Arguing is okay until you do it calmly, in a normal tone and style, so the other can react the same way. But unfortunately, you aren't doing that. You are just telling offensive sentences, words that are hanging in the air, and nothing else. That's why this topic gets highly overdiscussed, because each group wants to represent their opinions, and the ones who you think hasn't the rights for it, get harmed and hurt.This is only an opinion, nothing more. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423394/#p423394 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Heads-up: I don't, but at the same time, it's also pretty annoying to continuously deal with, especially given that I'm innocent on that particular front.@Ethin, the issue isn't whether or not something is actively constructive. It is whether or not something is actively -destructive. Simter wasn't just talking about how he hates a particular part of skype 7, or how he loves skype 8. He was attempting to essentially start another argument/another dumpster fire. Given that he was part of the previous attempt, given his prior stance on the matter, and given that this conversation was not sparked in good faith, I stopped it. And given that Simter has done this before and generally seems to like to stir stuff up, I thought it was time to step in and say/do something.Had someone done it differently, I'd maybe have let it go. Had Simter have done it differently himself, same deal. But just go reread exactly what was said by him in particular, and look at the annoyance it generated from folks other than me. That, in fact, was the straw. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423307/#p423307 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
I have to agree with 17 here. While the topic was no constructive, the topic also meant no harm whatsoever. Closing topics because they aren't constructive is censorship at a very small level because everyone has a different definition of what a constructive topic is, and by closing a topic "because its not constructive" you are effectively saying "I'm closing this topic because it doesn't fit my definition of what I consider constructive". If this were a forum specifically for, say, an international journal or other kind of professional publication, or some other professional, intelligent community, then I would fully understand closing that topic in that instance; such a topic would not belong in such an environment. But this forum is not such an environment, and hence closing a topic without actual evidence to suggest that closing it is necessary ("probable cause") is unjust. I submit that the warning be retracted, as well; the warning was far too heavy-handed and was (in my opinion at least) hypocritical. I use the word "hypocritical" in this particular context because that decision, to my understanding of the rules at least, was breaking the very rules that the moderators want to uphold.Edit: after reading Jades post (18), I still stand by my submission that the warning be retracted, or reduced o a caution, since it was (as I said) doing no harm existing there at that particular time.@Master of Death, I cannot understand what your getting at. Jade is right that he never once demonized anything related to the subject matter; it seems like you though are attempting to demonize (if not outright ruin) Jade. I have nothing to tell you other than to watch it; you are approaching what I would consider character assassination, slander, and/or defamation. and I have no doubt Jade already considers it as one of those three.
URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423286/#p423286
--
Audiogames-reflector mailing list
Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
I have to agree with 17 here. While the topic was no constructive, the topic also meant no harm whatsoever. Closing topics because they aren't constructive is censorship at a very small level because everyone has a different definition of what a constructive topic is, and by closing a topic "because its not constructive" you are effectively saying "I'm closing this topic because it doesn't fit my definition of what I consider constructive". If this were a forum specifically for, say, an international journal or other kind of professional publication, or some other professional, intelligent community, then I would fully understand closing that topic in that instance; such a topic would not belong in such an environment. But this forum is not such an environment, and hence closing a topic without actual evidence to suggest that closing it is necessary ("probable cause") is unjust. I submit that the warning be retracted, as well; the warning was far too heavy-handed and was (in my opinion at least) hypocritical. I use the word "hypocritical" in this particular context because that decision, to my understanding of the rules at least, was breaking the very rules that the moderators want to uphold.Edit: after reading Jades post (18), I still stand by my submission that the warning be retracted, or reduced o a caution, since it was (as I said) doing no harm existing there at that particular time.@Master of Death, I cannot understand what your getting at. Jade is right that he never once demonized anything related to the subject matter; it seems like you though are attempting to demonize (if not outright ruin) Jade. I have nothing to tell you other than to watch it; you are approaching what I would consider character assassination, and I have no doubt Jade already considers it as such.
URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423286/#p423286
--
Audiogames-reflector mailing list
Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
I have to agree with 17 here. While the topic was no constructive, the topic also meant no harm whatsoever. Closing topics because they aren't constructive is censorship at a very small level because everyone has a different definition of what a constructive topic is, and by closing a topic "because its not constructive" you are effectively saying "I'm closing this topic because it doesn't fit my definition of what I consider constructive". If this were a forum specifically for, say, an international journal or other kind of professional publication, or some other professional, intelligent community, then I would fully understand closing that topic in that instance; such a topic would not belong in such an environment. But this forum is not such an environment, and hence closing a topic without actual evidence to suggest that closing it is necessary ("probable cause") is unjust. I submit that the warning be retracted, as well; the warning was far too heavy-handed and was (in my opinion at least) hypocritical. I use the word "hypocritical" in this particular context because that decision, to my understanding of the rules at least, was breaking the very rules that the moderators want to uphold.
URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423286/#p423286
--
Audiogames-reflector mailing list
Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Okay, wading in with both feet here.First, to Nocturnis, thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself. But here's my take on it.A couple of weeks back, there was a fifty-odd-post thread about this very topic, with some prevailing opinions basically sounding like this: "Skype 7 is dead! I'm so glad. Everyone should switch to skype 8." I argued pretty forcefully against this, and I've made my reasons for doing so pretty clear in the past. The long and short is that nobody has a right to tell me what to use and what not to use, and that goes for everyone else in the community. What's more, if something I enjoy stops working and it wasn't actually doing any harm, taking joy in something I or others may feel stress about is just mean and spiteful and serves no purpose. Simter was a part of this discussion (which was deleted when it turned out skype 7 wasn't dead after all) and he has been part of what I'm generally going to refer to as shit-disturbing in the past several weeks. I saw his making of another pointless "switch to skype 8" topic and I clamped down on it. Everything being equal, I wouldn't have. If this weren't a hot-button topic, I wouldn't touch it. If it hadn't happened before, I wouldn't touch it. Ironcross, to use your example, in my opinion I was watching a dude who's already got at least one DUI stagger drunkenly into his car and then get into it. As a cop, seeing that, I'm probably going to head over there and ask him what's going on. Note that I didn't ban Simter. My warning is, in essence, a means of saying "stop stirring the pot", because on this topic and in this method, I feel that's exactly what he was doing, and I feel he reasonably ought to know that.MasterOfDeath, I am getting mighty tired of the miscommunication from your quarter. Not once have I ever demonized people for using skype 8. I've never said it's trash. In fact, I have said on multiple occasions that I will never pick on anyone for choosing to use different things than me. Not ever. If Simter's topic had been "eat peanut butter cookies; chocolate cookies suck", do you really think I'd have locked it? No. The issue is a big-picture thing. It's not because it's skype 7 vs. skype 8, and I absolutely can handle differing opinions, thanks kindly.To that end, I recognize that some of you think I was too hasty there. I'll field that, and I hear where you're coming from. I disagree, but I also respect your opinions too. Please let me assure you that I do not intend to make a habit of doing so, but given the miniature firestorm on this topic already, as well as the culprits, as well as the tone of the original post, I squelched it. Harsh? Yes, a little bit. Undeserved? I...don't think so, not really. Let me be clear. You can disagree with me as often, as thoroughly and as loudly as you want. Look at Ironcross as an example. His right-ish opinions make me want to bite things. Have I ever locked a topic about that? Have I ever issued him a warning for those views, or suggested that mods would get involved if he didn't stop talking? Not once, even though on an emotional level some of those opinions make me very upset. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings, in other words, and everything to do with how the subject was phrased, what was being said and how it impacts the community at large. Please remember the bit where many other ueers in that topic alone were feeling nettled enough to reply to it. I saw that whole picture and made a decision.Fun fact: if Simter, or anyone else, had been doing the same thing about a different product, or even telling people in skype 8 to switch back to 7, I'd have reacted the same way. Just have a chew on that for awhile. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423284/#p423284 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I mean, was the topic going anywhere, no. Was it constructive in nature, no. Still, your doctor doesn't put you on blood pressure meds if they think you might have high blood pressure in the next 5 years, but it's normal now. This isn't a place where you can just swoop in and lock down topics before anything happens. You can't be proactive about your locking of topics, that's like arresting someone because you think they will do something. Let's say someone staggers out of their house and you know from your experience as a cop, that person is wasted. You see the keys in their hand, you see them walk out to their car, you see them unlock the door, get in, and all the sudden, bam, you're on them, yanking them out, throwing the cuffs on them, reading them their rights, etc. Yeah but they didn't move the car, right? What if their reason for going out there is because they had a pack of cigs out there and wanted a smoke and used the last from in the house. That's what that was, it was emotion creeping into a moderation decision. It would be different say, if the guy moved the car, even a millimeter, I would agree with arresting him.That said, the mods can't be right 100% of the time. We need to let them get on with things without a collective swarm breathing down their necks. Do I agree with the closing of that topic? No. Did it actually do any harm? I don't see that it really did. The OP was not being constructive, was not acting good-naturedly to his fellows. etc. Also, you being on Skype 8 won't stop you from being forked, it will only stop you from forking someone while you use it. So we need to look at the scope of the issue and really only make a case of it if it seems pretty major, and it really didn't this time. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423266/#p423266 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : nidza07 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Just saying, but I use Skype 8. However, you should realize Skype version usage is not the issue. How does it make sense that I just say oh it has many bugs? Is that actually constructive? Will you switch a program you use by hearing oh it has many bugs? I know I wouldn't unless I hear something that can actually convince me, and even then it is not worth a specific topic. People will switch when they want to. The point is exactly that he did not use any offensive words. You can dislike something, if you could not this would not be a forum, but how people still cannot understand what's constructive for a forum and what's not is beyond me. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423255/#p423255 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Nidza. He never said it is shit, but he keeps saying it with less offensive words. I don't have anything against Jayde, only that he sometimes moderates with no reason, or at least a really small one. Of course you are not allowed to create a topic like that, but when in the hell did anyone say that you must switch? The person who created the topic, only stated that it has many bugs and it's even outdated. This is like the windows fight, like what to use, win7 or win10. Many people think win7 is secure, but many people say win10 is up to date and is supported. This is exactly what is happening with skype too, of course you can use skype7 but it won't be secure after a while. Of course skype 8 doesn't have new features, okay maybe one, like it displays when your partner was online the last time, but it is usable and it isn't inaccessible. Maybe people hate it, but these are usually the ones who stay at a really low level of technology and love messing around with really old things. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423251/#p423251 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : nidza07 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read MasterOfDeath, can I get the message where he said new Skype is "shit"? You seem to have something against jayde and cannot wait to say something about it, even though he never said such things about new Skype, and that's not even the reason of that topic being closed. However, could you tell me the purpose of a topic telling me to switch to a newer version of an app with no actual advantages offered and with a similar discussion just a week ago? Am I allowed to make a topic called switch to NVDA and say how stupid Jaws is and that everybody should just get back on the right track and use NVDA? I wonder why do we have to question each decision with one topic, seems to be a weekly trend recently here. The topic was not closed because Jayde does not like Skype 8, he would have most likely done the same thing had he not used Skype at all. The topic just didn't have any purpose, and the majority was thinking this way. Who should have a right to tell others on a forum what they should and should not use? Now if he said, hey guys, it might be a good time to try Skype 8 as Microsoft improved quite a few things, then listed some improvements, and said something like, besides, Skype 7 has this fork command which some people like to abuse so it might not be a bad idea for you to start getting used to the new interface before you are forced to, then probably people would not complain and the topic would not be closed. However, the OP in that topic was not constructive at all. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423238/#p423238 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Mayana, yeah, there were arguements about it but they wouldn't have argued if he wasn't generally against everyone who prefers the new version. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423227/#p423227 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Mayana via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read When I read Jayde's post, I also thought that his decision was too hasty. The OP did not really use any terribly serious insults; sure, he was of the opinion that those who use Skype 7 are wrong, but other than that, he just insulted Skype itself. The conversation didn't look like it needed to be closed just yet.I unfortunately didn't read the previous topics about this, so I'm not certain how heavily this has been debated, and it is possible my feelings on this would be different if I did. But I am of the opinion that it would've been better to wait a bit longer to see if the conversation could resolve on its own. Of course, there's a possibility of a more serious fight breaking out, but that can be handled when it comes. It is generally better to let people try to resolve their conflicts themselves first, especially now when everyone's watching what the mods do much more carefully.Like I said, I don't have all the information about this, and I definitely can't know what Jayde was thinking. I'd just like to ask everyone here not to be too hasty themselves, though. It is very likely that Jayde was just trying to do his job, not just closing topics because he likes Skype 7 and it's his choice and everyone should just fucking shut about it damn it! It is hard to ever truly know that, especially over the internet, but he seems to me like a guy who's trying to do what he thinks is right, like we all are for the most part, not just being a crazy, power hungry asshole. If he is the second, he must be playing a very long game. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423222/#p423222 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Exactly, i can agree, again. No, unfortunately this skype thing is so a huge thing for Jayde that anyone who speaks about using the new version, gets at least one moderation, or he starts arguing with the people who discuss it. Okay, i know that it's been discussed many many times, and i'm sure it'll even continue if it depends on some people, sadly, but having a different opinion doesn't mean that he needs to use this moderation thing to argue with the new version supporter. There will always be people who like older versions, there will be always people who even don't wanna change their operating system and stuff, but that doesn't mean they need to do this. As i remember, in the topic he locked, a person asked why they still use that version. Na, in that topic, he didn't tell such things as damn you stop using it because you are idiots, he said it causes harm to a few people, and it's old, nothing more. Even Jayde, and other supporters can't do anything against microsoft's decisions, and i guess when they stop supporting skype 7 forever, they won't start to complain to microsoft like ooh gosh you are so bad people that you discontinued it, oh go to hell microsoft because i liked the old version. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423218/#p423218 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Nocturnus via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Regardless how you spin it, there are moderation decisions that will clearly go down as the greatest screwups of all time, while some will seem like idiocies initially but prove to be anything but later on. You need to let time pass in order to truly find out if you're seriously in doubt. ON the other hand, if you're just openly questioning because you can, you won't fare well.If you asked me right now if there was any moderation decision I regret, I'd tell you that there are a few, though looking back on them I don't see that there was any alternative. When I signed up for the position I was made aware that a great amount of trust was being placed in me to try and do what was right. Notice I didn't say a load of trust was placed in me to absolutely do what was right, but to try and do what was right. Had such a mantle been thrust on me I would have quit immediately, because I can't, no matter how hard I try, always do what's right.By no means am I excusing the mods of any wrongdoing or misdeed if any occurs or should occur in future, but given the great transition that just took place I do think you need to go light on them while they feel each other out, try to get their heads together on all these new rules they've issued, get in touch with each other, keep in touch with each other, think things out and move forward. It's not as easy as it sounds. Even if they spent countless hours on skype or TT, which I am mostly sure does not happen, this would not necessarily result in overall better moderation decisions being made. Part of the reason the team survived as long as it did and has is that there is no one central stop for us all. We all took a break from each other, weren't in constant contact. Had we done it the other way around I think all of us would have been burned out way long before now.Time differences, age differences, personality differences, background and cultural differences, all of these play huuge factors in how moderation decisions take place and are handed out. If the situation seems urgent it may be necessary to hand out the warning or the ban first and ask questions later and be held accountable for prior actions. Thankfully, that is not always the case. At the end of the day though, you have to either trust or distrust; take it or leave it. If you trust, feel free to ask questions but remember they may not receive the answers you are personally looking for. If you don't trust, I hate to put it this bluntly, but you're only left with one choice; go away! URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423210/#p423210 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I feel it will be best for Jayde to reply to this one as well, however I will weigh in with a small thought. I agree with Nocturnus's points, we all moderate in slightly different ways. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423209/#p423209 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read All right Nocturnus, i can understand your points clearly. But this means you did your job well, you never thought if you don't like something then you can punish a whole community if they are not at the same wavelength with you. But some of them just don't understand that, or they may do, but don't wanna judge like that. And i don't want to attack the moderators personally, because they don't deserve that, but it's like in a job, there are employees who do their task perfectly, and there are ones who have their positions but a simple position means nothing, people will respect the one above them if the ones do the job as requested. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423204/#p423204 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : MasterOfDeath via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Yeah, they shouldn't let their personal preferences to decide but that message you quoted, simply states that he locked the topic because if he doesn't like the new version, then do not ever try to hurt him, but he can freely do that when he mentions the new one is shit. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423203/#p423203 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Nocturnus via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I'm going to weigh in as a past mod, fully aware that things have changed somewhat since my stepping down, but also, because I want you all to understand something really important. If you still don't get it after I present the following points, I'll spell it out super clearly at the end of this post.Point 1. Every moderator is different; we are all hardly clones of each other, nor have we ever been.Point 2. With those differences come differences of opinion, temperament, ideals, strengths and weaknesses, levels of expertise, perception, etc.Point 3. No matter how clearly the rules are spelled out, our first goal has always been to ensure as nice and friendly a place as it is possible to secure given that none of the users under our care are perfect, anymore than we are.In the event that you don't get it after reading all of the above, essentially what I'm saying is the following. WE are all, moderators included, as human as humanity makes us. When religion topics sprung up under my watch, I did my absolute best not to favor Christians, no matter how hard it may have been given my own close tie to Christendom and more importantly, to Christ. It angered some Christians, at least one of which decided to confront me on several counts. On the other side of the coin, there was one instance that I'm aware of in which, while I did my best to remain as unbiased as possible I was eventually taken to task by a user who reported me to the rest of the panel, after which I came forward and did my best to apologize and ask for forgiveness on any count of wrongdoing on my end.How would Jayde have handled those topics if he had been mod a year or two ago? I dunno. Liam? Again, I dunno. Anyone else who's new? I really, really don't know. I couldn't begin to tell you, thus it really isn't my place to try and tell you.Here's what I do know; unless things have changed super drastically since I left the panel, I know that sometimes, as much as we may not like it, we have to make decisions based on how we personally feel about particulars. A rule may not precisely be broken, but if we sense that there is an individual who is attempting to see how much they can bend it we're going to react. If the former weren't true and there was no reaction when it might or might not be perceived that rules are being bent, forumites would be shouting for mod heads on silver platters for turning the other way. Truly, it is a hard road on which to balance and walk on at the same time, but someone has to do it if you want a friendly forum.I've never, ever, ever ever ever been happy about giving a moderation warning, let alone a ban. There are power hungry crazies out there who probably love that sort of control trip or what have you... Get off on it, even. I"m not one of them. I don't generally stick my nose in many controversial topics as of late, so I can't say what things are like now, but reading the full context in this case, I gather that Simter voiced an unpoppular opinion. IN and of itself that isn't an issue. The problem lies in the wording.And I quote, "Hi. This is my last try to get adleast one part of the community back to right. Why are so many people of you still using skype 7 and giving out copies of it? I fucking hate it. The only thing we get out of it are forks and connectivity problems, anoying notifications for any single little event what seriusly no one needs, a crappy peace of shit called skype api. While there is a great version with no adds, much easyer to use, and the best is no more /fork spam. Because it just no longer exists. So, people, please stop giving out copies of skype 7, because then you may be the next responsible for the next fork."The beginning in particular is most telling: stop using an old version of a piece of software I hate and I find stupid. If that's not enough, this isn't the first topic on the forum to come up where this particular subject was discussed with the same opinion to no avail and, the general consensus was, to put it bluntly, mind your own freaking business!It's always important to look at the big picture as a whole. Supposing someone came out here and started spreading misinformation about a program being entirely unsecure but then failed to disclose any reason as to why, or worse, said that it was because of something that is common sense stuff you really shouldn't be doing, I would be twice as offended if a moderator didn't do a bit of research, then take a stand on the matter and simply say that enough's enough!Example: Why are you using windows! You should use OSX! You have less viruses! You have integration with iOS stuff right off the bat! It's stupid to use windows OS's because when you use OSX you just have a system that works and you don't
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : NicklasMCHD via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I rarely comment on stuff like this (last time I did it was sometime before christmas) but me myself, for once also thought it was a bit hasty to just close a topic like that (since no personal attacks were made toward a single indiviual).I personally think (and had the assumption) that the forum (and the topics on it) worked on a "don't like, don't reply" manor, where if you don't like a discussion in a specific thread, simply don't repply to it and let that be that.I really hope the moderators reply to this thread with an explanation of why and such and that they don't just pretend that it never happened. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423173/#p423173 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I understand generally where jade was coming from, but still! There was no heat in that discussion at all. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423168/#p423168 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read I understand generally where jade was coming from, but still! There was no heat in that discussion at all. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423169/#p423169 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read
2019-03-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: a few questions about moderator actions, please read Yeah I thought that was a bit trigger happy myself. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423165/#p423165 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
