Now you start off with showing me two graphs as evidence of ban-baiting or some other behind-the-scene conspiracy. My first thought as I looked at the graphs was "I have no idea what I'm looking at" and I'm not unfamiliar with graphs, in fact I make a living out of looking at graphs (so to say). What is it "measuring"? What does a thickened blue line represent and what do the other blue lines or red dots represent? What kind of data is even being shown on the network graph? If you want to talk data and make any statistically-verifiable observation, you at least need to address the following:
(a) The method used to collect the data
(b) A complete figure with a provided explanation of what it shows
(c) Any related statistical variable that displays a significant difference between the two cases (correlation, chi-square tests or anything relevant)
(d) Confirmation that there are not any outside factors systematically applying bias to the data
As an example of (d), does the fact that one user has over 20K posts compared to the average user who doesn't even have 10% of those play a role in this or not? If the network is made out of post data it would at least seem plausible to me that more posts correspond to more / thickened line joinings but I might be looking at it wrong because, again, the graph doesn't tell me what I'm looking at. This is generally how you do it, and even then you can only make an observation that needs further support, NOT a conclusion. Otherwise you'd be booed out of any research journal. Anyone can look at a graph and, depending on the insufficiency of data or some other bias, draw whatever conclusion he pleases, and obviously not all of them are going to be factual.
First off, again thank you Magical for providing an answer. I appreciate it.
I can explain it in my own words, but i rather just let the creator of it tell you what it does:
''I've begun recording reply chain meta-data starting from an actioned post (including anything replied to in that post). This data is parsed into user nodes that connect to other users. The idea is to find patterns of people at the center of the web replying to people who get actioned. It suggest replying to this person, or getting replied to will get you actioned.
Positions aren't really meaningful, it's a physics driven node network so stuff with lots of connections get drawn to the center. You can drag nodes around. Yellow dots with lots of blue connections are examples of getting dog-piled.
To even show up on the graph, you need to have recieved at least 8 replies to actioned post, or have sent at least 8 replies to an actioned post, or have sent at least 4 actioned post replies which includes at least one user with who has at least received 8 replies on their actioned post. It's still fucking huge. This is like if you took the core out of a much larger network, everyone in here is suspect.''
''To even appear on the network graph you need to have sent at least 6 replies, or recieved 8. When someone only has one line drawn to them, it just means there was only one other node that also got surfaced onto the network to pair them with.''
I even went back and updated the bottom image so its more accurate. And yeah, i should have added a full explanation of what it does instead of the rather short version i posted initially.
About the rest of the post: transparent moderation doesn't mean you get to see every aspect of how the mods arrived at an action for a user or post, probably because it is none of your business to begin with. Every forum ever has had a mod team which discusses forum cases securely before taking action, especially when it's a heavy issue. Same for concerns about mod actions, I'm pretty sure even here if you start questioning moderation practices openly, a mod will pop their head soon enough to ask you to forward any concerns to them privately. It shouldn't concern you, but evidently it does, and then to make the claims you make you'd have to have inside info from the private mod discussions of resetera, which you don't. Hence why such practices and deductions about users and mods reek of conspiracy theory to me - you do not even have the full picture of the data you are trying to make sense of.
So, basically, you reduce all the links i brought to you in my original post to conspiracy theory because they lack actual behind-the-scenes PM work between staff and what not? Don't you think its a bit extreme to disqualify all that evidence (Heck its just commentated stuff mostly brought up by the Kiwi bot, which just does post archiving, albeit very extensively) because it is missing one variable? I mean, sure, i can link you to my own PM chain of events, or those of others, but when there is already an overwhelming amount of factual data to skim through, does that make much matter?
Like, its not hard to make these claims ive made since they are backed up with posts and we also have OldGAF to look back at. At this point i am getting the impression you want to cast doubton the edge case that i miss actual PM posts between the staff. Sure, it would be a slamdunk case if there was also those messages, but without it, the situation should be obviously clear, don't you think? Its like saying the banbot is flawed because it does not take this into account - When anyone can look at those posts, see the conclusion The Names arrived at and agree/disagree with that. You don't really need PM's for that - Not to mention i vividly remember one moderator stating that not much interaction actually goes on at the moderator group - Hence The Names. (I wish i had that post somewhere.) This splinter group effectively carry out the bans. But yeah, it would be nice if we had better specifics.
Specifically about the ban you mention - did you not realize that the post of the so-called "protected" user is a mockery of the post that got the other user banned? It's not the same post without the 'daft' line, it's a sarcastic reply to it.
Its also clearly said in bad faith. I don't understand why you want to cast doubt on the ''protected'' part though - This user literally got a ban for it and it was very quickly reversed. When i say protected user, i am also referring to the contents of this post ive made. I am not going to call anyone a member of The Names or a Little Helper or say they are under protection if there is nothing to show for it, as that would be a baseless accusation. The reason i call that poster being protected is not only of that ban reversal, but inclusive of its prior postings.
That much is evident from the line "you protest the system by obeying the law and inconveniencing nobody". I know sarcasm doesn't translate well over text (I've responded seriously to posts on gaf who turned out to be sarcastic), but damn it even I got that one. Also that's evident by the exchange they have further down the page, where the "protected" user more-or-less says they disagree with the banned user. The banned user plainly antagonizes the other members further down the page with dismissive posts like "I won't even bother explaining" and "you all want to make this about race" again, right after they waved their finger at them about ways people should and should not protest, I also don't know how you missed that one. Especially on sensitive issues like protests (and race), do you not see how some people would take offense if you went up to them and said "you shouldn't protest like that", like you're some kind of expert or authority on the issue? This is doubly justified when you have no stakes in said protest to begin with.
But is that banworthy? By that same logic, you and i could easily be banned aswell for acting like we are some kind of authority. The fact that neither of us are banned is because its completely illogical to do so based on that notion. No, i didn't miss any of his contextual posts. When you get piled on, its not unrealistic that you just stop bother to explain this after a while. Especially on a place like that where staff literally lie that game developers made certain statements. They just want to hear one thing, or that you say something to get you heckled over. The banbot literally proves this daily. If that is a conspiracy theory to you, then you might aswell question how the kind of moderation done by The Names would translate over to Real Life.*
*It will not. Imagine throwing a huge fit because you got called a female for instance, or because you decide to support trans people but you call them ''transgenders'' instead of ''transgender people''.
So yeah, by the tone of their posts alone I don't see why the ban was unjustified. There's also the key phrase "long history of infractions" which likely means a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff about this user that you don't know of.
.... You do realize that this is a blanket term that they use, right? Along with ''still in the junior phase'' and such? I am not so sure why you are lending credibility to The Names (Who literally have a name for not sourcing anything they do), assuming that this blanket statement is true and yet assign discredibility to my posts for not featuring the behind the scenes PM's, indirectly thus also doubting the banbot for simply being a bot.
At that stage though, you might aswell doubt any outlet, any game developer who says other devs dont show up on ERA because of its atmosphere, any user and any platform that reports on ERA in general. Sure, i agree with you, you need to keep both sides open. And ill be the last one to say that everything on ERA is equally problematic. But when there is so much evidence to the contrary that a select group of staff and members dictate the policy of the other staff/users, eventually ruining the whole vibe of a site (The Names and their Little Helpers), i find it rather disingenous to then dismiss all that, on the notion that one misses direct, behind-the-scenes commentary. There is a boatload of evidence, direct and indirect, readily available if you happen to care over that stuff.
Again, you're trying to build an argument on facts you have no access to, so any conclusion you make is going to be a wrong one. The same rhetoric applies to your argument about the ban reversal of the "protected" user - you do not know the real reasons why, and you can only speculate.
If you are going to jump to a conclusion like that, after previously already making the comment that i am ''feigning civility'' than this discussion will quickly grow personal. That is not how it works. You may disagree with my opinion, like i can with yours, but to disregard entire points just to make a point, that's not an example of a healthy discussion.
I'm obviously not gonna talk about whether a 1-month ban was unjustified because I'm not a resetera mod and I don't do backseat modding. I don't see how the ex-mod case is another case of "protection" either though, since the poster you refer to gets bigger and bigger ban increments with every bannable post, and the natural culmination of that is a perma (like every other forum user I imagine; obvious trolls and egregiously awful posts need not apply).
The root of it is that this user gets more bans than most, and a name change, and a self-requested ban, for horrific postings that would have seen Joe Shmoe to the Permaslammer. You can't possibly look at those posts and think its okay to have that user come back every time, when regular Joe's get permaed for far less.
The gist aswell is that this isnt a fixed progression. Maybe the banbot should also take that into account: How many warnings/bans on average before someone gets permed? People in the junior phase usually get a far quicker perm than others. For you, that does not matter though, as i would still be missing the ''real reasons'' - although there is a lot of direct/indirect evidence already.
Essentially: If you know how to open a door without the key because the plans for how the door works and the lock are given to you, would you really need the key regardless? Sure, it may make things easier - but you don''t need it. Your request for evidence is basically that: You want the plans for the door and the lock itself and the key before proceeding further.
So overall I'm not convinced that you've verifiably demonstrated your claims about resetera and its protected class / unwarranted bannings. Feel free to make another post taking care of my issues with the figures, but I will probably just read it and not comment, as I feel this back-and-forth won't lead anywhere.
The thing is that i don't have to convince you on this. You can easily take the plunge yourself and reach your own conclusions, perhaps provide some evidence of your own on how you arrived at your differing view. Perhaps reach out to the creator of the banbot and ask how he arrived at his graphs considering that is your forte (Where do you work, by the way?) If you feel this discussion wont lead anywhere, Then i reckon we should agree to disagree here. I am not agreeing with your views, but i am not going to treat them as if they are illegitimate.
It's rather obvious this discussion has run its course when users either respond to my post and demonstrate they didn't get half of my points, or twist the other half to things I never said ("you cannot call out someone else who is liberal if their ideas are harmful", what? nobody said that), or when users bring the discussion down to their level by talking about flushing shit down the drain.
I fully stand by my initial post, and it seems neither party here is coming into the discussion with the intent of gaining new insight or reconsidering their stance. Mostly everyone wants to throw their 2 quid to get some positive feedback by like-minded people, but again this is like every forum discussion ever, so I'm not surprised.
That reads kind of contradictory when earlier you said:
''do you not see how some people would take offense if you went up to them and said "you shouldn't protest like that", like you're some kind of expert or authority on the issue? This is doubly justified when you have no stakes in said protest to begin with.''
You are as much of an authority or an ''expert'' as anyone else here, and the vibe i am getting when you say: ''Neither party is coming into the discussion with the intent of gaining new insight or reconsidering their stance.'' gives me the impression that you portray yourself as one. I've heard your view, i disagree with it, but i accept you having it. And personally, i do agree that overtime the swift should be towards positivity and less about just talking about ERA and what they do wrong. To me, you seem like you are the person having no stakes in said protest, so, i reckon for you there is nothing at stake here, except to lend a different voice than most others here?
My post did say that when I edited it immediately after posting. I edited it to " I don't want to continue this discussion. I feel that all people who are struggling deserve assistance, not just certain racial groups.". Clearly they didn't like that I was trying to come to a compromise in the middle and edited it back to my pre-edit text
Right, i reckon The Names found it hypocritical that you tried to show empathy to others with that post. Consequently the thing they are lacking so ever clearly.
A user of The Bore reckons i took a page out of the Evilore ''Book of Writing Posts'':
''I just perused shower elf's "other forums" Bore impersonation thread. We have to get this Redneckerz guy over here, stat. The one thing I learned from Lore is that word count bolsters credibility.''
Also Crunklord420 from Kiwi really must like me as he cited a post once more:
''My overall goal is to make sure the site is entirely data driven, and with the exception of the hand selected VIPs, it is. With the addition of the reply-action stats I plan to review existing VIPs and remove/add based on those stats. The site is not DoxOMatic9000, I'm not going to have it automatically go out and link/archive twitter/linkedin/facebook/etc accounts. This is just basic sociology student research stuff, but done in public view and in real time.
Anyways, please refer to my ethics policy. It was officially adopted after the original GitHub site got taken down :^)''
Sadly none of my posts cover my long red neck so far, as a floating head i care deeply about these things so cross-forum fame may get me enough funds to be included in Crunklord's dataset.
Yeah, but you said that jokes about women are closer to sexism than child rape jokes are to pedophilia. While trying to ignore the severity of each type of "crime", real world consequences and without being able to back this up with any data. At the end of the day, you come across as a pedo apologist.
Yeah, but you said that jokes about women are closer to sexism than child rape jokes are to pedophilia. While trying to ignore the severity of each type of "crime", real world consequences and without being able to back this up with any data. At the end of the day, you come across as a pedo apologist.
Wyh would I back up a claim I did not make about severity of crimes with data? I have not been talking about severity of crimes at all and why would that be in any way shape or form important to the question of whether the analogy was sound? If it is so important to you: Pedophilia is worse than sexism. As if that ever was up for debate. But in terms of jokes, jokes about children are not worse than jokes about women or vice-versa. Both are fine.
Wyh would I back up a claim I did not make about severity of crimes with data? I have not been talking about severity of crimes at all and why would that be in any way shape or form important to the question of whether the analogy was sound? If it is so important to you: Pedophilia is worse than sexism. As if that ever was up for debate. But in terms of jokes, jokes about children are not worse than jokes about women or vice-versa. Both are fine.
You started a weird argument about "distance to real sexism or real pedophilia" to deflect from the real life implications and actual severity of said jokes. The analogy is fine because people making jokes on Twitter about sensible topics is very much comparable.
Making jokes about raping children ist much worse to me than stereotypical jokes about women, but you don't have to agree with that...
You started a weird argument about "distance to real sexism or real pedophilia" to deflect from the real life implications and actual severity of said jokes.
It is comparable to make jokes about sensible topics, definitely, and if people decry others for jokes based on sex stereotypes, then there is no reason to not also call out jokes about children (with sexual connotations), but the analogy that claims that if one is sexism, the other should certainly be regarded as pedophilia is stupid, which is what I wanted to point out. This and only this. Everything else happened in your imagination.
Yes, we are not in agreement here, I think both, taken in isolation are just harmfree. And if you find one of those really problematic, you should be able to see why the other may be regarded as problematic by others.
Editor of the documentary here. Just wanted to say thanks to those of you that did watch it, really appreciate it. First hour long edit for me personally, so was definitely nervous about releasing that...not to mention with the controversy discussion in it included.
Been lurking over these threads just to read the feedback and all that. Definitely didn't go to ResetERA to troll or anything, literally went there to thank people for watching the doc and made the wrong call in getting involved in the discussion by answering questions about the controversy. I'm happy to answer questions about stuff like that, but unfortunately it seems I didn't word it the way I intended, or my comments got cherry picked into creating a narrative.
Anyways, thanks again for the feedback if you did leave feedback on it! I try to read everything as we don't have an established following and are trying to build a positive community around our content. Stuff like what happened over at Reset is pretty draining, so I try to stay away from that as much as possible. If you're curious, our next doc is covering Larian Studios and Divinity: Original Sin. Already in editing so we're hoping to have it out before the end of the Summer.
If you have any questions about the docs feel free to let me know!
I remember avatar quoting, but to ban someone, and you have the warped gall to include 'avatar shaming' when the poster was right as fuck to call that hypocrisy is cracking me up.
EDIT: Yes i am making a very crude joke here, its called ''insult comedy'', for those just tuning in. And also i just saw a roast so that's why.
Incidentally its likely also why ERA does not have a topic on roasts or even a ''General Comedy'' thread. I guess laughing every now and then is inflammatory over there... /s
Surpised he did not get the "vilify journalism" protection... oh that's right, he did a doc on KCD, he is automatically RE public enemy since it was not a doc to bash Vavra, their supervillian.
Avatar shaming, vilifying journalism, posting in bad faith, dismissing concerns of whatever... What's next? Not interested in fucking a trans-person or what's the politically correct term for this mental disorder? Oh boy.
Avatar shaming, vilifying journalism, posting in bad faith, dismissing concerns of whatever... What's next? Not interested in fucking a trans-person or what's the politically correct term for this mental disorder? Oh boy.
Do not forget, "tone policing"... the shit those condescending screechers do every other post, lol. But you have to be "liked" to get away with it.
If you are not attracted/interested in a transperson, they call you transphobic already. So it is okay for trans people to belittle you and/or pressure you to feel bad for your sexual preferences, something they talk shit about CIS men, and call them predators for doing.
You can change your look/surgically alter/take hormones, but you still acting like the same ole predator ass dude when you are rejected by your interests. Ironic, eh?
It is comparable to make jokes about sensible topics, definitely, and if people decry others for jokes based on sex stereotypes, then there is no reason to not also call out jokes about children (with sexual connotations), but the analogy that claims that if one is sexism, the other should certainly be regarded as pedophilia is stupid, which is what I wanted to point out. This and only this. Everything else happened in your imagination.
It is very much comparable because Reset has an incredibly low standard to cry sexism. By that logic, pedophila normalization (like Gunn has done) might as well be real pedophilia.
Yes, we are not in agreement here, I think both, taken in isolation are just harmfree. And if you find one of those really problematic, you should be able to see why the other may be regarded as problematic by others.
It has happened here and at Resetera, that people did not engage in discussions with people who had an anime character (especially if it is female) as an avatar, but instead just said "anime avatar" with the intended subtone of "if you have an anime avatar, especially of a girl, you are a sexist scumbag, so your opinion is automatically invalid". In principle it is good that this kind of behaviour has been restricted at Resetera, because it is very disrespectful and serves no purpose.
However, in this particular instance, I'd say this is no avatar shaming, but just a specific argument towards the expressed interests of the other poster. If I were to post "man, how juvenile it is that people play games with violet dragons", it would certainly be appropiate to call me out on my nickname or avatar indicating that I appear to be fine with this cute and cuddly.
Do you all remember that post by Skyrim, the bethesda developer who literally stated that the toxic nature of ResetEra drives away other developers from communicating on the forum?
Well, apparently - according to the Moderator, Morrigan - it didn't happen.
Despite the fact that we have literal evidence of it happening:
It has happened here and at Resetera, that people did not engage in discussions with people who had an anime character (especially if it is female) as an avatar, but instead just said "anime avatar" with the intended subtone of "if you have an anime avatar, especially of a girl, you are a sexist scumbag, so your opinion is automatically invalid". In principle it is good that this kind of behaviour has been restricted at Resetera, because it is very disrespectful and serves no purpose.
However, in this particular instance, I'd say this is no avatar shaming, but just a specific argument towards the expressed interests of the other poster. If I were to post "man, how juvenile it is that people play games with violet dragons", it would certainly be appropiate to call me out on my nickname or avatar indicating that I appear to be fine with this cute and cuddly.
I'm not sure that the anime avatar thing is related to sexism. Moreso that there's a stereotype that anime fans are immature and their opinions are therefore less valid. lol sorry Dr. Claus
Do you all remember that post by Skyrim, the bethesda developer who literally stated that the toxic nature of ResetEra drives away other developers from communicating on the forum?
Well, apparently - according to the Moderator, Morrigan - it didn't happen.
Despite the fact that we have literal evidence of it happening:
It seems like even if you author a million-page masterpiece of ridicule in this safe space, you will still end up being the "loser" in the breakup, since you're the one obsessing over your ex while they live well without thinking about you. Resetera is living rent-free inside your heads.
Containment boards don't really work, for the same reason that their real-world equivalent, catharsis, doesn't work. It just fosters and normalizes a certain angry mentality, and lets the toxic emotions snowball into something more and more divorced from the reality of the situation. If you look at some of the words used to describe people in this thread, with a fresh set of eyes, it is pretty concerning. This was a bad, and unprofessional, idea for a thread.
It seems like even if you author a million-page masterpiece of ridicule in this safe space, you will still end up being the "loser" in the breakup, since you're the one obsessing over your ex while they live well without thinking about you. Resetera is living rent-free inside your heads.
Containment boards don't really work, for the same reason that their real-world equivalent, catharsis, doesn't work. It just fosters and normalizes a certain angry mentality, and lets the toxic emotions snowball into something more and more divorced from the reality of the situation. If you look at some of the words used to describe people in this thread, with a fresh set of eyes, it is pretty concerning. This was a bad, and unprofessional, idea for a thread.
I disagree. I think this is the easiest solution. Pretending Resetera doesn't exist would be even more infantile and would also mean they're living inside your head. In fact, it makes no sense in the context here, as Resetera would be the weird kid that everyone ridicules. Is that kid living rent-free inside their head or are they just using him as entertainment? Are the "alt-right" and Donald Trump living rent-free inside their heads? There's furthermore the question of catharsis, in which the reactions you see here is like the reactions from people living under tyranny being released, there's always a lot of stories and pondering about it in hindsight. Like once the Soviet Union crumbled.
If you think this is bad, then you should rather see what they write on things like voat, kiwifarms and The Bore. Or the irrational hatred some have for EviLore. I mean, if anyone's living rent-free it's EviLore.
Poster explaining that just about every race owes black people reparations. I know slavery was a fucked up thing the US did but most people who supported this are all dead now.
If you think this is bad, then you should rather see what they write on things like voat, kiwifarms and The Bore. Or the irrational hatred some have for EviLore. I mean, if anyone's living rent-free it's EviLore.
I'm sorry does this thread read a lot differently than the kiwifarms thread? Do you think maybe a lot of the moths drawn to this flame were ones who were cursing his name too, before the fallout? I wouldn't be surprised.
It seems like even if you author a million-page masterpiece of ridicule in this safe space, you will still end up being the "loser" in the breakup, since you're the one obsessing over your ex while they live well without thinking about you. Resetera is living rent-free inside your heads.
Containment boards don't really work, for the same reason that their real-world equivalent, catharsis, doesn't work. It just fosters and normalizes a certain angry mentality, and lets the toxic emotions snowball into something more and more divorced from the reality of the situation. If you look at some of the words used to describe people in this thread, with a fresh set of eyes, it is pretty concerning. This was a bad, and unprofessional, idea for a thread.
Poster explaining that just about every race owes black people reparations. I know slavery was a fucked up thing the US did but most people who supported this are all dead now.
There are always loons who want to "correct for history" and want to pay a visit to those who are in possession of "stolen goods" and take it away from them and wrecking the freedoms of modern societies in the process.
I'm sorry does this thread read a lot differently than the kiwifarms thread? Do you think maybe a lot of the moths drawn to this flame were ones who were cursing his name too, before the fallout? I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, it certainly reads quite different, unless you've barely read that thread. I keep an eye on most GAF related things, so I check in now and then on what they're writing about and they can go pretty vile. We're not talking about just ridicule, but word choices and things like that.
Also, I agree that a lot of posters here have an irrational hate towards EviLore as well, I've noticed it now and then, blaming him for how "GAF turned out". While of course it's easy to put much investment into GAF and blame him for his laissez-faire approach most of the time, I'd say it's far from true of course. EviLore could've easily cashed in on GAF more than he did, instead he let it mostly moderate itself, while he as the owner was able to travel and enjoy the fruits of his labor. There's no point lambasting EviLore too much, although that doesn't mean that he's just a poor victim. He had made himself vulnerable to this with the system that was in place, then you had him being overwhelmed with a lot of people starting a whole thing about an uprising (I was reading this real-time before everything blew up) and being unable to respond fast enough.
As you might know, EviLore has a tendency to write long posts and I imagine he at times spends a lot of time considering his words, so that along with the whole thing being nuked, everyone hating on him, lead to a lot of bad decisions. EviLore has covered this extensively himself as well in various threads, about the depression he went through and how he doesn't really blame most people for it and that he kind of blames himself as well.
Still you of course have people lashing out now and then against EviLore, saying "YOU CAUSED THIS". Still he's extremely polite and doesn't try to deflect.
Yes, it certainly reads quite different, unless you've barely read that thread. I keep an eye on most GAF related things, so I check in now and then on what they're writing about and they can go pretty vile. We're not talking about just ridicule, but word choices and things like that.
Also, I agree that a lot of posters here have an irrational hate towards EviLore as well, I've noticed it now and then, blaming him for how "GAF turned out". While of course it's easy to put much investment into GAF and blame him for his laissez-faire approach most of the time, I'd say it's far from true of course. EviLore could've easily cashed in on GAF more than he did, instead he let it mostly moderate itself, while he as the owner was able to travel and enjoy the fruits of his labor. There's no point lambasting EviLore too much, although that doesn't mean that he's just a poor victim. He had made himself vulnerable to this with the system that was in place, then you had him being overwhelmed with a lot of people starting a whole thing about an uprising (I was reading this real-time before everything blew up) and being unable to respond fast enough.
As you might know, EviLore has a tendency to write long posts and I imagine he at times spends a lot of time considering his words, so that along with the whole thing being nuked, everyone hating on him, lead to a lot of bad decisions. EviLore has covered this extensively himself as well in various threads, about the depression he went through and how he doesn't really blame most people for it and that he kind of blames himself as well.
Still you of course have people lashing out now and then against EviLore, saying "YOU CAUSED THIS". Still he's extremely polite and doesn't try to deflect.
People make mistakes and it's pretty clear that the same toxicity that made this place flare up and turn into a shithole has been magically transported to the other site.
He's been undoing a lot of the stuff we all didn't see around sabotage/ghost bannings (hopefully he will share the info)
The moderation is open and transparent and people can engage in discussion and still have opinions
I think it's great that they have created their own containment board we can just sit back and mjpopcorn.gif
Yes, it certainly reads quite different, unless you've barely read that thread. I keep an eye on most GAF related things, so I check in now and then on what they're writing about and they can go pretty vile. We're not talking about just ridicule, but word choices and things like that.
Also, I agree that a lot of posters here have an irrational hate towards EviLore as well, I've noticed it now and then, blaming him for how "GAF turned out". While of course it's easy to put much investment into GAF and blame him for his laissez-faire approach most of the time, I'd say it's far from true of course. EviLore could've easily cashed in on GAF more than he did, instead he let it mostly moderate itself, while he as the owner was able to travel and enjoy the fruits of his labor. There's no point lambasting EviLore too much, although that doesn't mean that he's just a poor victim. He had made himself vulnerable to this with the system that was in place, then you had him being overwhelmed with a lot of people starting a whole thing about an uprising (I was reading this real-time before everything blew up) and being unable to respond fast enough.
As you might know, EviLore has a tendency to write long posts and I imagine he at times spends a lot of time considering his words, so that along with the whole thing being nuked, everyone hating on him, lead to a lot of bad decisions. EviLore has covered this extensively himself as well in various threads, about the depression he went through and how he doesn't really blame most people for it and that he kind of blames himself as well.
Still you of course have people lashing out now and then against EviLore, saying "YOU CAUSED THIS". Still he's extremely polite and doesn't try to deflect.
The story was different before the fallout. In years past we'd be regaled with (and secretly shocked by) stories from the owner about how mods like Dragona, for example, were known to be doing unjust bannings and abusing power for years prior, and it elicited no concern, until something eventually happened that bothered the owner more (in Dragona's case I think, letting someone use her mod account) and was deemed action-worthy. Not the only mod story like that. These stories shared in common a lack of concern for anything that simply hurt a member. The owner too, would occasionally enter threads with a chip on his shoulder about some subject, and ban anyone who spoke against him.
The narrative about who knew what about bad moderation has changed since the fallout, and has been focused around bish.
The problem wasn't just ignorance or lack of participation. It was not caring about something until you lost it.
If ya'll don't see me again, it's been brief but fun.
It seems to be all over the place, with people and posts disappearing with seemingly no explanation.
The story was different before the fallout. In years past we'd be regaled with (and secretly shocked by) stories from the owner about how mods like Dragona, for example, were known to be doing unjust bannings and abusing power for years prior, and it elicited no concern, until something eventually happened that bothered the owner more (in Dragona's case I think, letting someone use her mod account) was deemed action-worthy. Not the only mod story like that. These stories shared in common a lack of concern for anything that simply hurt a member. The owner too, would occasionally enter threads with a chip on his shoulder about some subject, and ban anyone who spoke against him.
The narrative about who knew what about bad moderation has changed since the fallout, and has been focused around bish.
The problem wasn't just ignorance or lack of participation. It was not caring about something until you lost it.
If ya'll don't see me again, it's been brief but fun.
Even if you are right, I would like to think that EviLore has learned from the past and would not allow it to happen again. Whether his hand was forced or it came about from internal reflection is irrelevant to me.
Even if you are right, I would like to think that EviLore has learned from the past and would not allow it to happen again. Whether his hand was forced or it came about from internal reflection is irrelevant to me.
It wouldn't even be a topic of discussion for me, if this place was letting go of the past instead of blaming external tormentors and making that a rallying cry for the community.
It wouldn't even be a topic of discussion for me, if this place was letting go of the past instead of blaming external tormentors and making that a rallying cry for the community.
I don't think that's what's happening though. I see this thread as an opportunity to shine light on the behaviours that led to the implosion in the first place. The reason it devolved to what it did is that dissenting voices were silenced and there was no social mechanism to keep it in check. This thread provides that, although I agree that it should be reigned in when it veers off into nasty, personal attack territory.
It wouldn't even be a topic of discussion for me, if this place was letting go of the past instead of blaming external tormentors and making that a rallying cry for the community.
The past is simply that....the past
Regardless of shit that went down last year a majority of this thread is admiring the stellar job that the moderation team and posters are doing on era and making it their own special place.
I am always excited about how many different ways an opinion can manipulated to expose those nasty trump loving transphobic people on there and watch them banned permanently
Without the strict and collaborative admin team developers can feel safe to post whatever they like.
I hear The last night developer is currently readying his official thread for everyone to read....its going to be great hearing about that game as it's pretty much disappeared off the radar since last years e3....what have they been up to???
I said that that although it was kind of a fantasy to have a female Spartan warrior who kicks ass against an army of physically bigger and stronger men (remember this is hand-to-hand combat, and AC prides itself on historical accuracy), it was a nice option for people who wanted to do that.
"Bikini armor isn't realistic, it shouldn't be in games, REEEEEE!!!"
Well, neither is these 110 lb women kicking mens asses. In fact, I would argue it's even more absurd.
I saw Kassandra at the gym today. She had her water bottle, her pink running shoes, and was playing with 2 LB dumbells. And that's fine.
