Posts made by Ganymede

@lordbelh

I have missed you here and elsewhere. We may not have agreed on everything, but I strongly respect what you have said here about making an effort to correct mistakes rather than doubling down on them.

@derp said in Positivity Going Forward...:

Now there is an alternative. People have choices. Two different cultures can come out of it. Or, if not that, then at least there are options and redundancy for if something terrible happens to one or the other.

This.

I was approached about giving a copy of the database to Tributary, a long-standing member and someone that I trust. Her concern was that we would let MSB and the Hog Pit die or get deleted. This is part of the reason why we decided to switch all of the boards to a mode that can be viewed by anyone, with or without an account. The folks at Brand MU Day (I think that's what it's called) therefore can link to threads here (I think) or otherwise cite to them.

But we don't need to compete. We just want to head in a different direction, that's all. I think people can enjoy both places for what they provide. Who knows? Maybe a third group will pop up.

@il-volpe said in Critters!:

But they spend all their XP on whatever stats it takes to dive headfirst down that long vertical tube and catch oneself from freefall at the chosen entry.

@devrex

I think the opposite.

I think we need to plan RP. I think games need to ensure there are scenes available for “off times.” I think we should try to embrace async RP.

But honestly I am out of the RP game because I don’t want to right now.

@tnp

I'm sorry, that was unclear.

Our decision to unban certain folks, and not others, was not because we were petitioned to do so by a member. We had decided to review the bans a while back, and we so far agreed on those announced. And we may decide to unban more accounts in the future.

That's what I meant to say. No one is required to petition to be let back in for their account to be unbanned. Sorry for the confusion.

@lordbelh said in Review of Recent Bans:

Making them have to come and ask to return is just petty, though.

No one is asking them to do this. I'm certainly not. What I'm saying is that Derp and I are still discussing the bans, which means that there may be some future reversals; however, for right now, we are focusing on a couple of other matters.

I respect your opinion and follow your logic, but I disagree with a number of premises and ultimately your conclusion. I am trying neither to wash my hands nor save face, but to do what I believe is correct for now and under the circumstances.

@inherentvalue

I did make errors.

I made an error banning Coin. I completely misconstrued what he had to say. I sent a message to his account and asked Cobalt to reach out to him to let him know about the reversal.

I made an error regarding farfalla. I think it was MisterBoring who put up a post about making sure consequences matched offenses. I have historically not done this out of expediency. This is not good leadership or stewardship.

I made an error regarding Meg. Meg was always just trying to advocate for farfalla. She did this when the initial ban came down. On review, she fell into the fourth category, so I apologize for that.

And with Scar, the comment that I seem unhinged was probably a fair observation under the circumstances, and I don't think there was any intent to get banned doing so.

No member petitioned me to change my mind on the bans. Derp did most of the arguing in our discussions as to whose bans should be lifted. We didn't agree on everyone, but those we did agree on have had their bans lifted. We're still talking, but we have other concerns to deal with right now.

Accountability is one such concern.

@testament said in Positivity Going Forward...:

If you want to come back, fine. But there isn't really a need to hide it.

I have no doubt that my name is being uttered in parts of the Internet in ways that would give me a reason to hide who I am.

@ghost said in Positivity Going Forward...:

I'd like to see a community in the hobby where those elements (or the urges to clap back because people are being mean) aren't necessary where I can make friends and swap ideas.

That's why we are trying this.

The decision to lift a few, but not all, of the bans was a simple one.

We elected to review the thread in which most of the "action" occurred to determine, in TNP's words, who were "specifically trying" to get banned. Some arguably tried to get banned by not following my request; some did so by spouting profanity; some asked to be banned; and others simply posted after I had made it clear that there was to be no further discussion. Of these four groups, those who fall in the first or fourth category were those we spent most of our time on.

Inferring intent is a difficult thing to do. Finding intent is almost always a matter of discretion. We could spend a lot of time discussing whether some or all remain unjustly banned under the circumstances; after all, the original controversy is more or less over, and we have adopted a new set of rules. We could also spend a lot of time discussing whether there's a point to lifting any of the bans, as another site has arisen, thus giving a place for anyone to criticize the administration of this site without reprisal.

For now, the decision to unban some and not others will stand.

A couple of things I would like to note in closing. First, we have opened up the section formerly known as the Hog Pit so that visitors can view its contents without needing to have an approved account. Second, as we have changed our tone around here, I would recommend that anyone looking to engage in the same style of debating as once was enjoyed or encouraged in the Hog Pit go elsewhere to do so.

If there is further reconsideration of some or all the bans in the future, we will notify the community.

@meg

Take care, Meg. I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

Blood Angel has been banned for blatantly ignoring a warning to quit using personal attacks. This was done in the Mildly Constructive area of the board, which we have tried to keep clean of the same.

I realize some folks have disagreements with the way that this board has been and continues to be operated, but calling us "fascist fucks" is neither appreciated nor a productive start for a constructive conversation.

@ghost said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

IC Romance/TS is often approached on an OOC level as "dating and cybersex", and I find the duality of it all to be very...interesting.

So how did you approach our IC romance?

I mean, aside from laughing hysterically.

@misadventure said in Critters!:

You are now staff. They have xp spends in the +jobs queue.

It must be real awkward when they offer TS for favors.

@il-volpe

I don’t know. I was pretty anonymous for a while.

Well, now the MUSH community can hate Russia.

Thanks, Obama.

@hella

This is an awesome resource. Thank you for posting it up.

@arkandel

When you remove the rampant sexism, it's not terrible advice. Sewing machines are kind of dangerous.

(Warning: link does contain a graphic injury.)

@greenflashlight said in Something Completely Different:

To people who perceive it as an injustice, "Hey guys please allow this injustice to carry on until I can consult with someone who actually matters (unlike you) about whether this actually is unjust" isn't a super reasonable request.

I asked everyone for the opportunity to talk with mietze about what was going on. Mietze has already explained things from her perspective. I knew that she had other things going on and that the protesting was triggering her and causing more stress. I told her I would do what I can to quiet things down.

We talked about shutting the place down for a couple of weeks, but she shot down that idea. In the end, we decided that I would do my best to get everyone to hold off so that, when she was ready, she could go back, review the record, and we could deal with the situation together. I told her to take all the time she needed.

Ultimately, I think I failed.

To me, there were four matters that arose contemporaneously, which I'll address in no particular order. First, there was Derp's and Roz's elevation to staff, the former of which was met with loud skepticism. Second, there was the matter on the Politics board, which led to demands that Derp be removed as staff. Third, there was the locking of the "Admin Derp" thread, which was connected to the first matter and raised the issue of whether threads attacking members or admins were permitted. Finally, there was farfalla's banning for continuing to communicate with a member who asked them to stop communicating with them.

The first three are all interwoven. Regarding the thread, I concluded that a thread targeting a member or staff did not violate our Rules of Engagement, so mietze's lock on the topic at issue was lifted. I also concluded that it would have been unfair for me to dismiss an admin to whom I failed to communicate my expectations, but still had a long talk with Derp about what my expectations of him are. As such, I stated that I would not remove him for what happened on the Politics board.

The matter involving farfalla is what I believe set off the firestorm. Some people felt that it was a borderline call; some people felt that the complaining member instigated the matter; some people felt that I was too punitive. We had previously banned another member for paging someone who told them to stop (Ortallus), so a ban as a consequence for continuing to PM someone after they tell you to stop should have been no surprise. Further, when someone tells someone else to stop, they should stop. That said, farfalla's ban is still being review and may be lifted under the circumstances.

As an aside, after farfalla's ban, Meg asked if farfalla would be given access to her account so that she could take a log of the conversation. This request was granted, and farfalla was unbanned for 24 hours for that purpose, on the condition that she not communicate with anyone through the account (thus respecting the effect of the ban).

If the injustice is the ban, then, as I said, it is under review. Staff agreed to review all bans levied out of the event. We have not yet made any decisions, but we intend to complete the review within the next few days.

Whether the protesting was reasonable is I think a matter of opinion, as is my decision to ban those who were doing so. All I can offer is an explanation, tell the community what we are doing now, and how we hope to restore faith going forward.

@hella

I think it depends on the game. You have to think about whether you want magic to be common or rare, high or low, and every part in between. For example, if you wanted to run an Eddings-like fantasy story, mages are rare and their power is immense; if you wanted to run a Brooks-like fantasy story, magic is more common, but their abilities are not quite as grand.

Based on your expectations, you can probably find a game system that works. Mage is good for "high and powerful" magic, in my opinion, because it is flexible. A game with codified spells, such as Lot5R or Earthdawn, would be better for "low and tricky" magic game. You can always tailor rules for Mage to "power it down," but you'll need to make expectations clear.

@hobos said in Something Completely Different:

Honestly I think you should delete the Hog Pit altogether and not even leave it as an archive, and just move out the threads that are warnings about predators.

We will not be doing this, but I understand why you think it would be a good idea to move the forum forward towards a less-toxic community.