The future of Quarter to Three's message board

[Tom Chick]

Well, it's not so much that, but that it has at times been hard to argue with you on such topics, tempers flare, and then it winds back boomeranging somewhere else. Sometimes you get a bit Matt Kiel in the authoritativeness of your game opinions, and just generally more... spoiling for an argument than I remember. ;-)

I appreciate you putting it this way. Thank you. I'll definitely try to keep this in mind. For the most part, I enjoy arguing with friends, but I'll certainly concede that I can come across too stridently.

Linoleum for example (whom I frequently and vehemently disagree with in P&R!) said much the same thing I just did, less diplomatically perhaps but not with vitriol. And suddenly he is banned -- surely you can see how that looks from the outside?

And that's why I fully expect this is going to get messy and we're going to lose more people that the folks banned earlier today: either because I believe they're going to be a problem going forward (Linoleum), they've consistently been a problem in the past (Anaxagoras), or they're just unhappy with me personally (Angie). Linoleum can be a pretty abrasive fellow, and I'd refer you to the "Why This Is Happening" section at the top of the thread. If I've misread what he was trying to do, my door is open to him.

-Tom

[mono]

I know it's politic to be vague, but I'll come out and say I'm gonna miss Charles, Hans and Raife's contributions. I grok why Tom closed their accounts. Still sucks.

Otherwise, I'm unconcerned about a chilling effect. Despite all the hand-wringing and the dramatic assertions, a majority of the folks who have been banned have been unable to pull back on the reigns and agree to disagree. Tom has on occasion let a chip on his shoulder exacerbate a difference of opinion to unfortunate conclusions, but I'm overall quite happy w/ his sensibilities. I would've been far less reasonable about nuking people who antagonized me ad-infinitum. Moreover, I'm grateful for the forum he hosts and the tone he prefers to set.

So, thanks Tom. Welcome back, and see you in the movie threads... eventually.

[Tom Chick]

Tom if you don't mean to BAN people then can you use another word like probated or on time out or temporarily not with us or something to indicate that these bannings aren't in fact bannings? If they are in fact permanent bannings then ok use banned. But otherwise, the language is very confusing.

Okay, fair enough. How about I take back what I said then about there being no such thing as a permaban? My point was that people change, policies change, forums change. You guys who have been around here for the long haul should know what I mean by that.

-Tom

[Jasper Phillips]

YOU SON OF A--

But no, seriously, I believe one of the reasons Tom and I clash frequently is because we're both far more alike than either of us care to admit.

Heh, I wondered if you were about!

No hard feelings; I make a good go at self-righteous pedantry too, at times. ;-)

[mlatin]

link removed
Last edited by Tom Chick; 01-03-2012 at 08:36 PM. Reason: I'm not sure I want to see what that was

What it was, Mr. Chick, was a person's login screen saying that they were banned ("No reason was specified"), with an unban date of "Never".

I kinda liked the forums when they were opened up rather than moderated. It's a shame you've decided to quell a good deal of popular people who posted and brought a good deal of traffic here. I'm sure they will do quite well posting those types of things elsewhere, because it's very certain that they won't be doing it here any longer, regardless of their state of banishment.

Kind of a shame, really. I have always liked Qt3's forums even though I'm not a frequent participant, mostly because of the quite no-holds-barred availability of expression around here. Sure, people will give others shit for it and at times there are folks who go over the line, but by and far, the people here (I don't really like to use "community", and we're not all friends, and I don't view this as your (Tom Chick's) living room/whatever) self-police themselves and figure out pretty quickly who they do and do not want to see that sort of crap from.

So count me as someone who is against this 'change back'. I can't really see any reason why it would be a change for the better. Maybe you'll come to that realization some time down the road, but from what I'm seeing I'm somewhat doubting it. We won't be fooled again.

[Chuck Jordan]

Threads: 67,878, Posts: 2,994,965, Members: 41,846, Active Members: 1,965

I suggest we find a new metaphor. That's a high school, not a house.

Then it's still a privately-owned high school. (Which would make Tom Professor Xavier, I suppose).

Maybe high school is the better metaphor, considering all the temper tantrums that are going on, and all the bellyaching over the break-up of a clique.

I recall suggesting back in the Avatar thread of doom that you take a break, go get some air or something. Maybe do so again?

That's nonsense. If anybody needs to step away for a bit, it's all the people freaking out, pitching fits, trying to catch Tom on technicalities, drumming up conspiracy theories, dragging out past grudges, and just being generally hysterical and awful.

For all the complaints about Tom being obstinate or hot-headed, here's how I see it: a few months ago, he responded to a pile-on by saying, "Maybe the problem is me," and he left his own forum open to the people who kept dogpiling him and criticizing him. While still maintaining all the hassle of running a message board -- you couldn't pay me to run a message board considering how the internet churns out drama queens at such a ridiculous rate -- while not getting to enjoy it.

And in the time since, did any of the offenders once stop and say, "You know, maybe we did take it a too far." Or "We should step away and calm down a bit." Or "I also acted badly in the situation." Hell no. They started threads and laughed and made jokes and posted pithy animated GIFs. And kept nursing all their old petty grudges to have at the ready for whenever Tom came back, like in this thread.

I agree 100% with what robsam said:

Continue to bitch about how badly he sucks as a mod and moan and complain forever about it, then jump up and down in glee when he leaves for a while and doesn't reply for three months, and mock him, insult him, deride every thing he has ever done on QT3, the site he owns and allows us to post in on his own dime, well, I'd have banned some of you fuckers much sooner than he did, and not nearly as kindly as he did.

If anybody thinks the bannings are arbitrary, then that must mean they honestly can't tell the difference between a civil, respectful disagreement over the moderation of the forum; and a hostile, condescending attack.

I'm actually impressed by the restraint -- I too would've given a lot of people the "fuck you, there's the door" a lot sooner and a lot more angrily. It sounds like a lot of people need to grow up and get some perspective.

[antifood]

It's disappointing how this turned out, I don't think anyone wins.

[Dave Markell]

At the end of the day, Tom has his ideas on how the forums should be run, they're his forums and at some point, you have to either agree to disagree or find some other forum. The alternative would be for Tom to host, pay for and support something he himself wouldn't want to be part of which is absurd.

Completely absurd, and yet literally dozens of people who don't pay for the servers, don't administer the site, and don't have enough of a reputation to start their own forum seem to think that Tom owes them something. It's the other way around--guests are supposed to be appreciative, respect the owner's rules, and understand that visiting is a privilege, not a right. If they don't like the rules, they should leave for places that are better fitted to their interests and styles. The net's a big place with multiple venues for anyone.

[Brad Wardell]

Brad, I don't think you're really helping your cause here.

You might want to take your own advice.

What cause would that be, nlanza?

[Aeon221]

I never thought I'd prefer infractions here, but this summary banning stuff really needs to stop. In EU terms, it's like we're sitting at -3 stab with comets winging on by.

It's one thing to remove users when there's a community consensus that they've been disruptive. Dawn Falcon claims to use a bot for posts. Brettmcd derails most threads he enters -- I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm definitely in the minority on that one. Octonoo is, well, Octonoo. I'm not asking for them to be banned, but I can't imagine shedding a tear if they were.

It's another thing entirely to take out people in a thread that, at this point, almost seems intended to act as a honeypot. Especially when the appearance is that of spur of the moment bans. I've never much cared for Anax -- nor do I think he gave two shits about me -- but I don't think he was saying something that would have appeared out of place in P&R.

edit: I'm not contesting the right of an admin to ban anyone they damn well please, it's just this unrestrained exercise of that power is unnerving.

[theborbes]

It sounds like a lot of people need to grow up and get some perspective.

I will kindly remind you that we are on the internet. What you're asking is unreasonable.

[nlanza]

What cause would that be, nlanza?

I'm not going to play this that's-not-what-I-was-saying game with you.

What I mean is that you're doing a bunch of what you spent several paragraphs complaining about. You sound like you're pompously trying to score points, and as you say, it's sort of hard to imagine your post spoken in person.

I just think you could benefit from a bit of the self-reflection and foot-in-mouth-avoidance you're preaching for others.

If you don't think that's the case, fine.

[malkav11]

Personally, I can see where privacy concerns etc are an issue, but I feel like when you're dealing with something as final (sounding, at least) as a ban, maximum transparency is the best policy. I absolutely love the "Rap Sheet" system on SomethingAwful, for example. (I don't expect to see it here, for a number of reasons including differences of policy and philosophy, SomethingAwful's vastly larger userbase and moderation team, and the no doubt significant coding investment it would require.) I suspect there's at least a little of the village stockade to it in motivation, but it's also tremendously helpful in understanding moderation decisions when I can simply click through to the reason someone was probated or banned and a direct link to the offending post. "Oh," I say, as I discover that that person who seemed polite, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in a Games forum thread was in fact banned for being horrifically racist or creepy in some other subforum I never enter.

I can't say as I've understood almost any of the bannings here (when I even noticed that they had occurred), conversely. This isn't to say that they were unjustified (I have no idea) or arbitrary or any of that. Just that I haven't had any context for most of them.

[Tom Chick]

What it was, Mr. Chick, was a person's login screen saying that they were banned ("No reason was specified"), with an unban date of "Never".

I kinda liked the forums when they were opened up rather than moderated. It's a shame you've decided to quell a good deal of popular people who posted and brought a good deal of traffic here. I'm sure they will do quite well posting those types of things elsewhere, because it's very certain that they won't be doing it here any longer, regardless of their state of banishment.

Kind of a shame, really. I have always liked Qt3's forums even though I'm not a frequent participant, mostly because of the quite no-holds-barred availability of expression around here. Sure, people will give others shit for it and at times there are folks who go over the line, but by and far, the people here (I don't really like to use "community", and we're not all friends, and I don't view this as your (Tom Chick's) living room/whatever) self-police themselves and figure out pretty quickly who they do and do not want to see that sort of crap from.

So count me as someone who is against this 'change back'. I can't really see any reason why it would be a change for the better. Maybe you'll come to that realization some time down the road, but from what I'm seeing I'm somewhat doubting it. We won't be fooled again.

Mlatin, I'm sorry to hear you say this, but thanks for saying it the way you did. That's mostly fair of you. I do agree that we're losing a lot of what makes Qt3 special and I cannot possibly express how depressing that is to me. But I'm convinced it's necessary to make this forum the kind of place I want it to be.

-Tom

[Lorini]

Okay, fair enough. How about I take back what I said then about there being no such thing as a permaban? My point was that people change, policies change, forums change. You guys who have been around here for the long haul should know what I mean by that.

-Tom

Well I guess I haven't been around long enough because while I understand the history, I still can't figure out whether or not Linoleum is perma banned.

I would like to be assured that before anyone is permabanned they would be given at least one infraction first with the warning that if the behavior continued then they would get permabanned.

I understand that sometimes that may not happen because the infraction was too over the top (such as someone soliciting children for sex or something) but I would hope that people could disagree in a way that you don't like and still be given a chance to make good.

I understand the overall problem is that only you see the issues. I don't go into Movies or Books etc so if people act like an ass there but act nice everywhere else, I'd be perplexed as well. But I know only too well that some of the people who have been banned have been overly nasty to you and to me and to others.

And that's the thing. Eventually people are just going to have to either trust your moderation or not and leave. Now as long as people are given an opportunity to correct issues, then I'm certainly on board with trusting your moderation.

Lastly at my previous job, if I would have been seen with the bouncing breasts on my screen, I would have been given a final warning. My job had a zero tolerance of porn and related stuff. So I absolutely support the ban on NSFW stuff, much appreciated.

[Jasper Phillips]

And that's why I fully expect this is going to get messy and we're going to lose more people that the folks banned earlier today: either because I believe they're going to be a problem going forward (Linoleum), they've consistently been a problem in the past (Anaxagoras), or they're just unhappy with me personally (Angie). Linoleum can be a pretty abrasive fellow, and I'd refer you to the "Why This Is Happening" section at the top of the thread. If I've misread what he was trying to do, my door is open to him.

Well, I can certainly agree that Linoleum can be grating and irritable, but I would argue that he's the sort of disagreeable you want to keep around as he's honest and straightforward in his disagreement. He said his piece, and I didn't get the sense he was planning to keep slagging it, for example.

Might be worth relenting just a bit, without essentially demanding people come groveling back with their pride in their hat.

You guys who have been around here for the long haul should know what I mean by that.

Nope. Clear as mud. I honestly don't think there's anyone here who can tell for sure the difference aside from you. No idea whether Lino is gone for example -- How could I? I can't know what's gone on between you before.

-Jasper

[Mr. Zero]

Based on what I'm reading in this thread, Tom is banning people for being really ineffective at argument. "So this guy wants this forum to be his living room, huh? I'll show him how wrong he is -- with aggressive italics!" What's the angle there? Maybe some excitement about speaking truth to power, I guess, but a ban button's even more convenient than a headsman. And then Athryn lit herself on fire to protest an entirely conjectural sellout which stusser later debunked, and there was that guy comparing this to a junta or a dictatorship or whatever.

Just a weird thread.

[Tom Chick]

It's another thing entirely to take out people in a thread that, at this point, almost seems intended to act as a honeypot.

You know how you can tell when politicians are on message because they keep using the same phrases? It's the same with dragging in stuff from other forums, Aeon. :)

But to answer the familiar sounding honeypot charge, I prefer to think of this thread as a testbed. If you want to level a screed at me, have at it. But don't be surprised when you discover you've run afoul of exactly what I posted at the top of the thread about what I expect on this forum.

Lorini and malk, the infraction system will hopefully provide exactly the transparency you're asking for.

-Tom

[DennyA]

Be right back. Out of popcorn.

Pretty sure the gamut of opinions has been expressed in one way or the other at this point. I'm not one for squelching discussion, but I'm really not seeing much potential for constructive discussion going forward.

This sucks, because I can completely see why Tom felt it has come to this. Having been around here for a decade, I will miss some of the folks who are gone. But that's because this is a community to some of us. Unfortunately, for some others it seems to be a playground, an ARG, or an argument clinic.

I can't see much point in continuing to hash it out. If you feel Tom is wrong, I don't think you're going to change his mind. If you are angry and vehemently disagree, probably the best thing to do is walk away for a while and see where the forum goes. Escalating the drama's not really going to accomplish anything productive.

In the meantime, who has the white cheddar popcorn salt?

[nlanza]

In the meantime, who has the white cheddar popcorn salt?

Brewer's yeast. Seriously. It's fantastic on popcorn. Or grated parmesan.

Mmm.

[Brad Wardell]

I'm not going to play this that's-not-what-I-was-saying game with you.

What I mean is that you're doing a bunch of what you spent several paragraphs complaining about. You sound like you're pompously trying to score points, and as you say, it's sort of hard to imagine your post spoken in person.

I just think you could benefit from a bit of the self-reflection and foot-in-mouth-avoidance you're preaching for others.

If you don't think that's the case, fine.

My suggestion was for people who are mad to just take a break before hitting the send button because in this thread, there are clearly consequences to making hasty comments. I apologize if I came across as pompous.

[AlanQ]

Completely absurd, and yet literally dozens of people who don't pay for the servers, don't administer the site, and don't have enough of a reputation to start their own forum seem to think that Tom owes them something. It's the other way around--guests are supposed to be appreciative, respect the owner's rules, and understand that visiting is a privilege, not a right. If they don't like the rules, they should leave for places that are better fitted to their interests and styles. The net's a big place with multiple venues for anyone.

I get your point, but I don't really agree. I think a forum is a public place in the same way a shopping mall or a community centre is a public place, even if it is privately owned. I would be upset if I got kicked out of a mall without understanding why or what the rules were, so I understand why people are upset here, too. Ultimately this is a public place as much as it is Tom's private place, and it's value derives from the fact that people can expressly themselves freely. I don't think it is asking too much that the rules be clear and that bannings be transparent. As it stands right now, I don't know why any of the posters in the OP were banned; a vague allusion to a "history with Tom" is not much of an explanation. Even if you don't think Tom should have to explain himself, there is a utility in making bannings transparent in that it can guide other posters in avoiding the same fate.

So basically it's not that I don't like the rules, it's that I don't really understand what the rules are or how they are being enforced.

[Eduardo X]

Tom, I think this is poorly thought out and overly strong-handed. I highly doubt I'll post on qt3 anymore.

[delirium]

I never thought I'd prefer infractions here, but this summary banning stuff really needs to stop. In EU terms, it's like we're sitting at -3 stab with comets winging on by.

It's one thing to remove users when there's a community consensus that they've been disruptive. Dawn Falcon claims to use a bot for posts. Brettmcd derails most threads he enters -- I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm definitely in the minority on that one. Octonoo is, well, Octonoo. I'm not asking for them to be banned, but I can't imagine shedding a tear if they were.

It's another thing entirely to take out people in a thread that, at this point, almost seems intended to act as a honeypot. Especially when the appearance is that of spur of the moment bans. I've never much cared for Anax -- nor do I think he gave two shits about me -- but I don't think he was saying something that would have appeared out of place in P&R.

edit: I'm not contesting the right of an admin to ban anyone they damn well please, it's just this unrestrained exercise of that power is unnerving.

I don't understand why you still can't grasp this. This isn't about dealing with trolls (and I imagine those people will be dealt with separately). This is Tom drawing a line and saying that he is no longer going to tolerate endless griping about his moderation. There is no community consensus to be had. If you can't accept the way that Tom has chosen to moderate - and I think he has laid out the rules pretty clearly - then you aren't welcome here.

I'll agree that it's a bit draconian, but this isn't the time or place to continue complaining about it. It really sucks that we're losing all these established community members, but I hope the rest of you can just learn to accept that this is the way it's going to be and move on. If you're not sure where the line is, you're best off avoiding it completely or taking it to PMs.

[Anti-Bunny]

Please don't ban me, again. I'll just stay in the League of Legends thread.

[Jason McMaster]

Please don't ban me. I'll just stay in the League of Legends thread.

BAN HIM. BAN HIM QUICK

[Dave Markell]

I don't think it is asking too much that the rules be clear and that bannings be transparent. As it stands right now, I don't know why any of the posters in the OP were banned.....So basically it's not that I don't like the rules, it's that I don't really understand what the rules are or how they are being enforced.

I think the newly articulated rules are clear, myself, and I'm sure Tom will address any specific questions you have about them in this thread (since that's one of its main purposes). As for transparency, I don't think it's essential. I know why a few of the posters in the OP were banned, and it was for reasons that perfectly fit the policies as described. Others I'm clueless about, but since I'm not responsible for the enormous task of monitoring every post in every thread, I'm willing to accept that they likewise make sense.

[Jasper Phillips]

Lorini and malk, the infraction system will hopefully provide exactly the transparency you're asking for.

How is that going to work? Your description is:

* As much as I'm loathe to do this -- it just seems so silly -- I'm implementing an infraction system. See the updated rules post for more information about how this will work. This post is an example of how it will work (you should see a tag on the bottom right of the post that you can click for more information).

but I don't see any such "tag on the bottom right of the post", I just see the quote button...

[Tom Chick]

I think a forum is a public place in the same way a shopping mall or a community centre is a public place, even if it is privately owned.

I think I take issue with this. No one has a right to be here. No one. People are here because I want them here. If they have a problem getting along with people, they're no longer welcome. I don't really see it as a public place, especially since I'll be vetting accounts again. If you don't like the living room analogy, think of it as a club with a limited membership.

I dunno, maybe I'm just picking at a semantic issue, in which case I apologize. But if there's one thing I got clarity on over the last three months, it's that I resist the idea of this being a wide-open public place.

So basically it's not that I don't like the rules, it's that I don't really understand what the rules are or how they are being enforced.

Again, I apologize for the following passive-aggressive sigh, but: sigh.

As I wrote in the post at the top of this thread:

...if you're unhappy with how I run the forum, there are plenty of other communities available to you. You have no right to be here. You furthermore have no right to use this forum to frequently air your disagreements. If you can't get along with everyone -- and that includes getting along with me -- then you're not welcome here. And there is therefore no reason you can't go to Facebook, IRC, Google Plus, Neogaf, or some other place. Those are all fine places, and many of them will offer what you want. But here, on the Quarter to Three forum, you get the community I want. Not the community you want. You can do that somewhere else.

And as I wrote in the reworked rules post at the top of the forum.

Don't drag in your baggage from another thread. This can be a tough balancing act, because how we interact is often related to what we know about each other. But dragging down a discussion with an argument you're hashing out elsewhere or that you had six months ago isn't welcome. If you're going to hold grudges, learn to have a polite discussion with someone you might dislike. See the previous rule.

Do those help? I'm not trying to be flip with you, but I hope those paragraphs a bit more about what's going on this thread.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

How is that going to work? Your description is:

* As much as I'm loathe to do this -- it just seems so silly -- I'm implementing an infraction system. *See the updated rules post for more information about how this will work. *This post is an example of how it will work (you should see a tag on the bottom right of the post that you can click for more information).

but I don't see any such "tag on the bottom right of the post", I just see the quote button...

Urk, really? Okay, I obviously suck worse than I thought at vBulletin. Ideally, a flagged post will have a label on it that anyone can click to see why the post was flagged, with room for a short comment from the moderator if necessary, and an indication as to whether the account is temp banned and for how long. Furthermore, each person's account should have their infraction history publicly visible.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Uh, stand by?

-Tom