The future of Quarter to Three's message board

[Tom Chick]

Just a minor misunderstanding amplified by the stress of this thread. Didn't want it to pass unexplained.

JMJ, marriage counselor! And, yes, my apologies to Aeon for misreading his intent.

-Tom

[André Costa]

I find the tone of some posters almost gleefully crowing about the ouster of some of the banned distasteful, at best. It gives off a combined vibe of cozying up to the Administration and petty spite, and personally I found much more value in the posts of many of the banned than many of those cheering their banning.

Note, I'm not criticizing Tom here, I'm merely pointing out the unseemliness of some of the more positive reactions to the bannings.

But the tone of 'some posters' when Tom decided to leave was ok?

[Tyjenks]

I just want you to know that you are one of the gems of this forum and I would have been crushed had you somehow been on that list.

Happy New Year!

Wait, is this sarcasm. I am almost as bad at delivering it on the internet as reading it. :)

Well, given that that would have taken place in November, 2010, I think the chances are pretty slim there...

I was just going by most of our June 2002 forum anniversaries, I guess technically you are correct. I do realize there was time before I joined up because I visited during that period. It was just a more empty experience without my meager contributions.

If I wanted to, I could ban everyone whose username begins with a T.

Doh. There is always some T messing it up for the rest of us.

[Brian Rucker]

Tom's name begins with a T.

[Tom Chick]

I think there is a real cost to having the type of strong personality posters that don't let issues die and feel very entitled. It drives away the less frequent, more shy, or just more busy posters who often bring very interesting and new views to the table. I know sometimes this is acknowledged as interesting developers being hounded off the site but, while I won't speak for Tom's intention, in my opinion one of the tangible benefits to changes like the ones put in place is that they provide an environment for new ideas and new perspectives. While banning someone obviously removes one person from the site, creating an environment people are comfortable to contributing to can bring many people to the discussion.

Very well put, Lantz. That's a great corollary to what I wrote at the top of the thread about what I expect from the forum. Thank you.

-Tom

[Robert Sharp]

You leave Tom McNamara out of this!

[Tyjenks]

Tom's name begins with a T.

Exactly.

[Tom Chick]

Please let me know if I'm out of line, since I certainly don't want to put words in anybody's mouths, but from what I've seen in this thread, my interpretation of the situation is as follows, without any of the baggage of living room metaphors, etc:

- Tom doesn't want QT3 to be un-moderated, for various reasons.
- If QT3 is going to have a moderator, right now that has to be Tom, because that's the only person who's available. Questions of setting up a group of mods, etc. are premature because it requires an additional layer of management and policies for the mods to adhere to, which is a lot of work to generate. And at the end of the day, I think people would still complain about Tom even if there were other moderators, since all the policies and decisions would ultimately come from him.
- It's very difficult for Tom to be the moderator when there are people that have personal problems with him, or problems with the way he moderates.
- So, Tom has elected to keep a moderated forum instead of those keeping those posters around.

I think a lot of people are interested in arguing the second point, that it would be easy or better in the long run to set up the moderation group. That's something I don't have a lot of experience with, but I think to set it up in a way that's perceived as fair would be relatively difficult.

But I think the last point has gotten a lot of attention because it's the most visible aspect, but I think it's a fairly mature approach, given that nobody has infinite patience. In the long run, if a moderation team is set up that's completely removed from Tom as an individual, I imagine a lot of those people would be welcome to come back. But that's a long term sort of thing.

Thank you for this, Mr. Wheeljack. Very fairly put and with a lot fewer words than I had to use.

-Tom

[balut]

But the tone of 'some posters' when Tom decided to leave was ok?

No, that was distasteful, as well. I think I noticed this one more because 1) it's stickied, and 2) it represents a greater volume of potential future posting that is gone.

[SuperJay]

If I wanted to, I could ban everyone whose username begins with a T. So if you want to be here, you have to trust that I'm not going to do that. The whole point of this ugly messy episode that I've been dreading for weeks is that you should leave if you can't extend me that trust.

For what little it's worth, Tom, that is a great way to express what you need from us. You need us to trust you, and we need you to trust us. It's a two-way street. I think some of the responses in this thread were in reaction to what initially appeared to be a somewhat arbitrary, dictatorial position on your part. Framing this situation in terms of mutual trust and expressing some empathy towards others is a more effective way to get your point across than "it's my forum and I'll do what I want." And I know you haven't said that outright, but I hear the the living room analogy (for example) as someone asserting autocratic control, not as a request for someone to trust them. It's a simple difference, inverting it from "Me, mine, I" to "we, us, ours," but a profound one when it comes to communication in times of stress.

I didn't see his responses back as anywhere near what you did, either, so it just reinforces what I was saying about tone online. It's just very difficult to cipher.

I agree - that was my (unstated) point as well, that we can each read the same posts and come away with completely different interpretations. I'm sure that's exacerbating Tom's exasperation with the whole thing, given that he keeps having to explain the same points repeatedly.

[tiohn]

My work has neither a swimming pool nor a beach, and that level of dress is not allowed in the office, thus pictures of people in that level of dress are - wait for it - not safe for work. I assume this is true for a large number of people.

Can people show up to work there in a t-shirt and jeans? What about shorts and sandals? Would you get in trouble for seeing pictures of people dressed like that?

[André Costa]

No, that was distasteful, as well. I think I noticed this one more because 1) it's stickied, and 2) it represents a greater volume of potential future posting that is gone.

You're right. Also, sorry, i know i sounded a bit like an asshole but one gets annoyed after reading too much drama like in this thread.

And now, back to lurking. *SWOOOSH*

[Tom Chick]

For example - I note that in the new rules, there is no longer any mention of "developers, writers / industry" and interestingly enough, the shill rule is no longer there. Not sure if that is intentional or not.

Where before, QT3 has always been "a place where game industry types" hang out, I've always felt priveleged because most of the discourse is of above average quality both in content and writing style.

But going forward, I'd be really curious where Tom's vision would lead us. This seems to be a missing part of the puzzle for me. Where do you see this site going and what type of people / discourse so you envision?

Fair questions all around, Tman. Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned (Lantz or nlantz, I believe), the nature of the internet is such that developers who use to mix freely with us can't really allowed to do that any longer, at least not the way they used to. It's just how things work. We still have plenty of industry folks here, but I don't think we can sustain this idea that Qt3 should afford special treatment for industry folks so they can chat about the games they're making.

For instance, over the years, I've been dismayed to see things developers say on Qt3 carried on blogs or news sites. But there is literally no way to stop that with a forum like this and with a videogaming media like that. We're all talking in the public eye here and any developer who wants to participate in the discussion knows that.

But as for where I see us going forward, the answer would be "forward". Not very helpful, I know. But I promise this return to moderation has nothing to do with selling the site, which is something I wouldn't do. Well, okay, everyone has his price, so don't hold me to that. But I had someone PM me yesterday and basically ask, "So I hear you're selling the domain and I want to buy it, but only for the forums...how much?" Apparently one of the splinter sites is convinced I'm cleaning up the forums because I want to sell the domain. Or I I've got a deal in the works and I'm doing this to appease some sort of merger deal. That's all pretty rich. The front page is going to continue to be exactly what's it's been for a year now, with a couple of planned tweaks and possibly exciting developments. And if I have any say in the matter, the forums themselves will be, as I wrote, a community where you all feel safe, welcome, and like you're among friends. That's all this has ever been about.

-Tom

[nlanza]

Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned (Lantz or nlantz, I believe), the nature of the internet is such that developers who use to mix freely with us can't really allowed to do that any longer, at least not the way they used to. It's just how things work.

That was me, responding to XenoCrash.

Clearly I must destroy the lurker with a confusingly similar username. But, you know, in a respectful and positive way.

[Wing of ilium]

That's a great post by Lantz. And I have to admit I'm fine with QT3 becoming even less of a character driven drama.

[Royal Fool]

That was me, responding to XenoCrash.

Clearly I must destroy the lurker with a confusingly similar username. But, you know, in a respectful and positive way.

Gently caress until he dies.

[Tom Chick]

I had the opposite impression - Aeon's intent was clear to me, even if his wording wasn't. His (?) tone conveyed someone distressed and confused, but still engaging in attempted good-faith discussion. Seeing Tom come at him with the gloves off, dragging in old baggage from other threads or previous incidents, and adopting an incredibly belittling tone was disappointing.

That's entirely fair, SuperJay. Aeon and I have a sort of history and I was being far too defensive.

-Tom

[jason]

Can people show up to work there in a t-shirt and jeans? What about shorts and sandals? Would you get in trouble for seeing pictures of people dressed like that?

T-shirt and jeans, yes, within reason (jeans can't be torn, ripped, with holes, etc, same for the shirts - no offensive images/words on shirts). Shorts and sandals, no.

[bluemax]

You are all bad and you should feel bad.

[Robert Sharp]

I don't even understand the theory that banning people would be linked to selling the site. What does that even mean? If there were such a deal, Tom could just sell it all and let the new admins worry about this. He could avoid all the headache he's dealing with here. This whole theory was based on an offhand remark about exciting developments for 2012. It would take several flawed leaps to get to "Tom's selling the site!" from that, and each would be undermined by the fact that Tom is doing this now.

Many of the banned people would be no detriment at all to selling the site. In fact, I doubt any of them would have an effect either way. Very odd.

[merryprankster]

But as for where I see us going forward, the answer would be "forward". Not very helpful, I know. But I promise this return to moderation has nothing to do with selling the site, which is something I wouldn't do. Well, okay, everyone has his price, so don't hold me to that. But I had someone PM me yesterday and basically ask, "So I hear you're selling the domain and I want to buy it, but only for the forums...how much?" Apparently one of the splinter sites is convinced I'm cleaning up the forums because I want to sell the domain. Or I I've got a deal in the works and I'm doing this to appease some sort of merger deal. That's all pretty rich. The front page is going to continue to be exactly what's it's been for a year now, with a couple of planned tweaks and possibly exciting developments. And if I have any say in the matter, the forums themselves will be, as I wrote, a community where you all feel safe, welcome, and like you're among friends. That's all this has ever been about.

-Tom

Well, I for one hope you are someday able to cash out on QT3 bigtime, and spend the rest of your days drifting around the Aegean!

[Mightynute]

I predict Tom loses QT3 in a poker game and goes on to become mayor of Cloud City.

[jerri blank]

Tom, what are your thoughts (if any) to making some of the boards invisible to non-members? If increasing dev participation is important to you (I don't know whether it is or not, and I don't have an opinion either way), they might feel better about posting if they knew that random gaming writers weren't able to scour Qt3 for errant quotes that could be taken out of context.

And if you DO have concerns about how the tone of the forum might reflect on the front page, keeping the zoo animals invisible behind a wall would help address that as well.

[jason]

Monetization doesn't have to mean selling the site, or even putting ads on it. In the current state of things, I don't think there is a person out there with a website who doesn't look at stuff like Nerdist with a little bit of envy. Chris Hardwick isn't making a ton of money from the website itself, but it's part of his brand that drives ticket sales for the events he does and more.

And if you are going to build a brand, you have to exert a little control over what happens under your brand.

[Wing of ilium]

Tom, what are your thoughts (if any) to making some of the boards invisible to non-members? If increasing dev participation is important to you (I don't know whether it is or not, and I don't have an opinion either way), they might feel better about posting if they knew that random gaming writers weren't able to scour Qt3 for errant quotes that could be taken out of context.

And if you DO have concerns about how the tone of the forum might reflect on the front page, keeping the zoo animals invisible behind a wall would help address that as well.

I'd like new people to join the boards. Them being able to see the boards and judge their tone seems to outweigh the marginal benefits of the entirely superficial barrier you're proposing.

[jerri blank]

I didn't suggest making all the boards invisible to the general public.

[Tom Chick]

What I think Jerri is talking about is like the social groups we sort of have, or a closed subforum for only certain people. I was open to that in the past, but given how some people were using the social groups, I'm not sure it's a good idea. There are plenty of options on the internet for closed communities. If developers want to talk privately amongst themselves, I suspect they're already doing that on Facebook or Google Plus. I'm not convinced Qt3 really needs that feature.

-Tom

[RickH]

Some disagreed with Tom on a continuing basis and others only once or twice, but I guess that was enough to get them banned. This wasn't just about moderation of the board, because to the best of my knowledge some of those posters never talked about the moderation of this site at all. Slainte Mhath talks about the forum rules in his last post, but there's one other unposted rule, which is that it's unwise to criticize Tom.

If you persist in doing something that someone has repeatedly asked you to stop doing, and then express consternation that there were actual consequenses to your behavior, then yeah, some guy on the internet is going to call you an idiot.

But I will say that the above quote seems to sum up the "discontented" side of the aisle's complaints. i.e., that it's all about Tom settling scores. That may be your impression, but I can't disagree more. I've seen Tom take huge amounts of crap from people, and on rare occasions from me, without taking administrative action. And that's just what I can see on the board. I'm sure there are further examples in PMs and emails that I can't see.

Based on that, my feeling is that he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Disagree if you will, but I don't see any evidence of the petty motives that are being attributed.

[jerri blank]

That's not exactly what I mean. I'm talking about putting some of the boards behind a firewall so that the general, non-member public, can't see them unless they join. So someone who just happens across Qt3 might be able to view Games, EE, Hardware, etc., but not others (like P&R).

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating such a thing, but it's something I did with the Simple Machines forum I used to run. It provided enough exposure to draw potential new members but gave existing members certain spaces where they could post without everything being seen by casual browsers.

[Nixxter]

I'd just like to say I need some eye drops getting caught up on all this. And now, I am going to subsume my own ego, which it seems more of us are doing as the general tone has calmed down while our fearless leader rested his own eyeballs.

Welcome back Tom.

We all had our own reasons for coming here, but you sir are a magnet and we are your humble filings. I know I have been derided in the past for being an apologist of yours in the past, but it's your own damn fault since I have never played a game you liked, and I didn't (I know enough to stay away from those where our taste differs!).