10 years

[Sarmatian]

"I am confident enough in my knowledge of what happened in discussions I was not privy to to publicly recount them"

"I want to see transcripts of what happened in staff discussion so as to better understand what happened"

Pick one.

I'm confident enough in my knowledge of what happened. I'm also tired of the mantra how everything was fine and dandy and those two inexplicably decided to leave, leaving the rest of the staff aghast and surprised because of the unprovoked move. And now everyone wants them back.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm confident enough in my knowledge of what happened. I'm also tired of the mantra how everything was fine and dandy and those two inexplicably decided to leave, leaving the rest of the staff aghast and surprised because of the unprovoked move. And now everyone wants them back.

Then your confidence is misplaced.

I'm going to make an assumption, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that your perceived knowledge of what happened came directly from private messaging with Louis.

I know this is difficult to do considering the party involved and his relationship to you and this forum, but if you examine the source from a nonbiased perspective, as a historian would do, then it doesn't quite hold up to increased scrutiny.

Assuming your best source is Louis, you're getting a primary source, which is obviously very valuable when examining the greater picture, but only as a part of the whole and not as a standalone. Assuming Louis was contacting you as the entire thing was reaching its later stages, or even somewhat after that, you have to take into account the fact that he wouldn't have any incentive to provide a detached, dispassionate account of what was going on. He would be venting to his friends. As would all of us.

It's why I'm getting a little twigged at all these cries of "slander" from all of those whose sources are presumably Louis and what happened in the Watchtower threads at the time; they're presumably all originating from one single source. From someone else's point of view, it could easily be turned around and I could say the same thing to those who are directing it as a kind of dolchstoßlegende against staff at the time. Slander is a matter of perception.

The alternative to this is that you and others received leaks of what was discussed in staff forums directly from Louis or someone else, in which case the leaker would be in gross violation of the moderator code of conduct we all agreed to and which Beskar posted earlier in the thread.

[Sarmatian]

Then your confidence is misplaced.

I'm going to make an assumption, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that your perceived knowledge of what happened came directly from private messaging with Louis.

I know this is difficult to do considering the party involved and his relationship to you and this forum, but if you examine the source from a nonbiased perspective, as a historian would do, then it doesn't quite hold up to increased scrutiny.

Assuming your best source is Louis, you're getting a primary source, which is obviously very valuable when examining the greater picture, but only as a part of the whole and not as a standalone. Assuming Louis was contacting you as the entire thing was reaching its later stages, or even somewhat after that, you have to take into account the fact that he wouldn't have any incentive to provide a detached, dispassionate account of what was going on. He would be venting to his friends. As would all of us.

It's why I'm getting a little twigged at all these cries of "slander" from all of those whose sources are presumably Louis and what happened in the Watchtower threads at the time; they're presumably all originating from one single source. From someone else's point of view, it could easily be turned around and I could say the same thing to those who are directing it as a kind of dolchstoßlegende against staff at the time. Slander is a matter of perception.

The alternative to this is that you and others received leaks of what was discussed in staff forums directly from Louis or someone else, in which case the leaker would be in gross violation of the moderator code of conduct we all agreed to and which Beskar posted earlier in the thread.

This is exactly the bullshit I'm sick of. For the record, I didn't exchange a single PM with Louis. I've learned about from PM with those who were in contact with Louis. So, I don't even have a single primary source. Several secondary sources at best. Also, I didn't have a bromance with Louis like Strike did. We exchanged a few jokes over the years, but by and large, we were talking only in the backroom and monastery. I didn't even know what was going on until I noticed that Louis simply isn't posting anymore, and I found out only recently that it's all related to BG and Adrian leaving.

BUT, I don't really need any of that to understand what was going on. Two years later, one of the guys who trolled Louis and demanded a public punishment, ACIN, called another member "slut" in jest. You could try and look for a lifetime for such a perfect equivalence. No one batted an eye. When I pointed it out, Andres' explanation was "well, we're not as strict now".

There are dozens of examples before and since, and it appears we became "strict" for just a short period of time, to demand of Louis to repent his wicked ways and apologize, and after he was gone, we returned to "not so strict" ways. Screw that.

And now everyone is going "ooh, we miss him" and "we maybe shouldn't have done that", even those who actively trolled him, together with those who refused to get involved or simply just joined the majority.

I dare say, the loss of those three members is the primary reason why the backroom deteriorated so much.

I was just killed on line because my wife insisted I had to empty the bin... And it couldn't WAIT!!!!

That's an emergency. The trash, if left unchecked, can threaten Gotham City.

[Beskar]

BUT, I don't really need any of that to understand what was going on. Two years later, one of the guys who trolled Louis and demanded a public punishment, ACIN, called another member "slut" in jest. You could try and look for a lifetime for such a perfect equivalence. No one batted an eye. When I pointed it out, Andres' explanation was "well, we're not as strict now".

There are dozens of examples before and since, and it appears we became "strict" for just a short period of time, to demand of Louis to repent his wicked ways and apologize, and after he was gone, we returned to "not so strict" ways. Screw that.

Further we look in the past, stricter things were.

For example, you used to post at least 10 times in the Entrance Hall before you could post anywhere else, after you have been 'approved'.
Then there was the Junior Member system where you couldn't edit your posts and restricted in where you could post. The edit part was a little painful for me, as I am a sucker for constantly tweaking posts, that whole 'oh, I should include this, or reword that' once you left the room sensation.
The Backroom used to be a sealed off fortress where you had to be vetted before you could even read it.
I acquired infractions for using the term 'Damn', I got a warning for calling another member 'sillybilly' when it was said in jest, as it was classed as a personal attack.
This is how strict it was, thus, by comparison, Louis's not even getting a post edit for saying 'muslim fag' was used as an argument of hypocrisy.

Suggesting it was strict for a few minutes to somehow bump Louis off is fantasy.

[Greyblades]

I have memories of getting a warning for saying "hell", apparantly it was too close to an abbreviation of Helvete, a swedish swearword.

[Sarmatian]

That was done for practical reasons, backroom being trolled by some activist group or other, and the practice was discontinued as soon as the reason for its implementation ceased to exist.

Suggesting it was strict for a few minutes to somehow bump Louis off is fantasy.

I'm suggesting that good natured jesting was never a cause for persecution, and that there were many worse examples left unsanctioned. ACIN and Drunken Clown played into hands of some of the staff members who disliked Louis and Banquo, who then pulled a dusty rule book and said look, insulting other members ist verboten, calling someone a fag is an insult, so let's get them.

Don't make me go look for examples.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Someone is taking this too seriously.

[Kagemusha]

Further we look in the past, stricter things were.

For example, you used to post at least 10 times in the Entrance Hall before you could post anywhere else, after you have been 'approved'.
Then there was the Junior Member system where you couldn't edit your posts and restricted in where you could post. The edit part was a little painful for me, as I am a sucker for constantly tweaking posts, that whole 'oh, I should include this, or reword that' once you left the room sensation.
The Backroom used to be a sealed off fortress where you had to be vetted before you could even read it.
I acquired infractions for using the term 'Damn', I got a warning for calling another member 'sillybilly' when it was said in jest, as it was classed as a personal attack.
This is how strict it was, thus, by comparison, Louis's not even getting a post edit for saying 'muslim fag' was used as an argument of hypocrisy.

Suggesting it was strict for a few minutes to somehow bump Louis off is fantasy.

Sorry Beskar but with all due respect, i have to call BS to that. You are talking about trees not the forest here.

To be honest. I would not go commenting something as an Admin you have little experience of the matter itself. This discussion is not about forum rules or how those are being maintained per se, but administrative issues and personal chemistries.

[Strike For The South]

The warning system was never implemented with an even hand. Which is fine, moderators are people and they do this for free. I just can't get behind the idea that we were so much stricter back then. I was constantly gettitng away with bullying other members, it was fantastic. Then those other memebers complained and they got banned. The good old days were good indeed.

louis was railroaded, banqou left because of the children, and now finding a member who can interact in a social suiuation is a cause for celebration.

[Gilrandir]

Further we look in the past, stricter things were.

I acquired infractions for using the term 'Damn', I got a warning for calling another member 'sillybilly' when it was said in jest, as it was classed as a personal attack.

And now you can easily make a chauvinistic and humiliating comment about another nation and get away with it. Cheers.

[Husar]

And now you can easily make a chauvinistic and humiliating comment about another nation and get away with it. Cheers.

Nations don't have feelings, they only exist in our heads.

[GeneralHankerchief]

This is exactly the bullshit I'm sick of. For the record, I didn't exchange a single PM with Louis. I've learned about from PM with those who were in contact with Louis. So, I don't even have a single primary source. Several secondary sources at best. Also, I didn't have a bromance with Louis like Strike did. We exchanged a few jokes over the years, but by and large, we were talking only in the backroom and monastery. I didn't even know what was going on until I noticed that Louis simply isn't posting anymore, and I found out only recently that it's all related to BG and Adrian leaving.

BUT, I don't really need any of that to understand what was going on. Two years later, one of the guys who trolled Louis and demanded a public punishment, ACIN, called another member "slut" in jest. You could try and look for a lifetime for such a perfect equivalence. No one batted an eye. When I pointed it out, Andres' explanation was "well, we're not as strict now".

There are dozens of examples before and since, and it appears we became "strict" for just a short period of time, to demand of Louis to repent his wicked ways and apologize, and after he was gone, we returned to "not so strict" ways. Screw that.

Wow, okay, the misconceptions are starting to pile up here.

Firstly, in the year between Louis's departure and you receiving your apparently unsatisfying response from Andres, the forum had gone through several different administrators. At the time of Louis's departure, Ser Clegane was the sole admin, having ascended to the post in light of Tosa's passing. By that time the following year, Ser Clegane had stepped down with Andres, frogbeastegg, and Secura having taken his place. There was lots of other restructuring behind the scenes that followed, but I think it's safe to say that there's a fairly obvious connection between the change in administrators and the change in policies.

Second of all, if there was any inconsistency in how people are treated beyond the concept of policies changing with time and people being human, it is because moderators were and are expected to uphold a higher standard of conduct.

Thirdly, I'm sure you're aware of how closely your argument is starting to lean towards "but Truthiness!" so I won't elaborate on the matter.

[Sarmatian]

Wow, okay, the misconceptions are starting to pile up here.

Firstly, in the year between Louis's departure and you receiving your apparently unsatisfying response from Andres, the forum had gone through several different administrators. At the time of Louis's departure, Ser Clegane was the sole admin, having ascended to the post in light of Tosa's passing. By that time the following year, Ser Clegane had stepped down with Andres, frogbeastegg, and Secura having taken his place. There was lots of other restructuring behind the scenes that followed, but I think it's safe to say that there's a fairly obvious connection between the change in administrators and the change in policies.

You obviously didn't notice my clever use of "ist verboten". Or maybe it wasn't as clever as I thought it was.

I'm aware of that. I blame quite a few of those people you mentioned. And I blame some others for not standing up for BG and Louis. Beskar's post in that very thread...

This post was so tempting to go off-topic, but to condense what I want to write, the Org staff from back then was a powderkeg waiting to explode and it erupted into Fag-gate. This erupted resulted into a brand new era and direction for the Org as innovation and reform was stifled heavily by the 'Unwritten Code' which some staff members fought tooth and nail to keep, to the detriment to the Org. This 'code' was finally broken as Fag-gate caused what was perceived to be the 'Unthinkable' to be done. In one light, you could think of Louis as a matyr, ushering a new start for the Org, in the other, he was a man just like everyone else who has their flaws caught up in an untenable situation.

... also proves I'm right. Although that new start never materialized, cavalry came only after the Indians killed John Wayne and Garry Cooper.

Second of all, if there was any inconsistency in how people are treated beyond the concept of policies changing with time and people being human, it is because moderators were and are expected to uphold a higher standard of conduct.

Don't give me that. No one was insulted, but apparently, some of the staff took the effort to bleed on Fragony's behalf.

Thirdly, I'm sure you're aware of how closely your argument is starting to lean towards "but Truthiness!" so I won't elaborate on the matter.

No I'm not. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to not give a rat's ass about it.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Beskar also corrected himself about his previous perceptions earlier in this thread, so the post of his you quoted is not accurate. (-edit- post directed towards Sarmation, I started writing before SFTS replied)

Anyway, congrats again Strike.

[Sarmatian]

Beskar also corrected himself about his previous perceptions earlier in this thread, so the post of his you quoted is not accurate. (-edit- post directed towards Sarmation, I started writing before SFTS replied)

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that post.

[Fragony]

No one was insulted, but apparently, some of the staff took the effort to bleed on Fragony's behalf.

Not on my behalf, I didn't even know about that post, and I certainly wouldn't have complained if I had.

[Husar]

Not on my behalf, I didn't even know about that post, and I certainly wouldn't have complained if I had.

I don't know why people keep mentioning you, maybe it is based on what Louis told some but it makes little sense.
Louis was not suitable or bearable as a moderator anymore IMO and I personally asked Ser Clegane to demote him. Whether that was the deciding factor I do not know as there may as well have been others and I was not involved in the decision.
If he told someone that I held a grudge against him anyway or that I backstabbed him, that wouldn't be the only stuff he made up at the time to avoid admitting a mistake...

So much for my version.

[Brenus]

"I've never heard about Adrian's departure being related." As much I remember Adrian never intend to stay. He was a journalist making inquiries about forums.
As Louis is concerned, I don#'t remember a thing. Was there, then gone, as the other French I don't remember his avatar... Yes, he was a good opponent/ally and I regret him. But life sometimes takes path which leads out of internet.

I was just killed on line because my wife insisted I had to empty the bin... And it couldn't WAIT!!!!