Crat wouldn't do this on my MUD. You know why? Because rules are enforced consistently across the board. [snip] A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding why Crat behaves the way he does on IMC. Because he's a completely different person where there are rules that are enforced. Crat, (and myself) do what we do on the network because the rules were posted a long time ago, agreed upon by the community at the time, and enforced until Kiasyn threw a hissy fit and pulled Talon and MegaBot from the network because he wasn't allowed to swear on ichat anymore.
That's some bullshit right there. If you're suggesting that the only reason Crat is abusive towards Davion is because it's not against the rules to do so, then keep it against the rules and temporarily ban him every time he does so. If a guy can't manage to be civil without being forced, then force him.
Q: There are other networks out there why should I join yours? A: Well it's all a matter of choice. The MudBytes Intermud Communication Network is operated in a democratic fashion. Does this mean mob rule? No. It means that all members are treated fairly, and equally, and nobody is above anyone else. Members are encouraged to discuss whatever they wish, as loudly as they wish, provided their activities do not cross into damaging the network. We also do not insist that you apply to connect ( provided your code is new enough ) before joining.
Aaaand just because we can:
It means that all members are treated fairly, and equally, and nobody is above anyone else.
I guess that means that Crat was in violation of the FAQ (informal rules?) by trying to present himself as superior for no other purpose than to treat his victims in an unfair fashion. One could even go so far as to argue that his hurtful actions could have dissuaded the server admins from maintaining (or even consenting to continue operating) the IMC2 servers.
Hey, wow, this is totally productive. Let's call people names until they do what we want them to! Yeah! Greatest plan ever.
Y'all are overreacting slightly more than just a wee bit here. I totally agree that the ban was shady, and I'm not trying to argue with you about that, but what the fuck are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to be banned over this? If that's what you want, just stop logging on; it ends in the same result and you'll save yourself from a potentially unhealthy spike in blood pressure. Do you want to actually come to a productive agreement about how the rules should be amended and enforced in the future? Then stop being assholes. (To clarify: While Davion is also being an asshole, he's not a dictator. The ban wasn't his, and since we have a friendly selection of moderators, I'm pretty confident that things will work out favorably in the end. You're trying to rip into his shit when, as far as I can tell, he's not even a real player in this nonsense. Give the level-headed people a chance to improve the situation, and if that doesn't work, then it's probably time to bring the hyperbole machine back out.)
4) The following are not tolerated on public channels: * hate speech * racial slurs * social engineering hacks * unwarranted hostility to newbies * spamming * commercial advertising
On it's own I think "unwarranted hostility" is a little unspecific (as we have discovered - way open to interpretation), but in addition it's certainly very hard to tell who the "newbies" actually are on IMC…
I'd say it's people we don't recognize. People we aren't familiar with. I'm sure people recognized Twisol and I were newbies when we came around.
Though I like the idea of unwarranted hostility being against the rules for everyone. Is it acceptable to randomly yell and scream at someone like a crazy person? I think this rule is a good thing.
I think it should be "harassment" rather than hostility.. if you're being a dick I should be allowed to shoot you down. Other people may not see your dickishness, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't and feel the need to respond with at least some hostility.
However, continued and unprovoked hostility or harassment are far worse crimes imho.
Also as an aside, I think Crat's hostility (if indeed it could be categorised as hostility, I just thought he was sounding off tbh) was absolutely warranted.
There is no means of justifying this much bitching, period. I cannot fathom why anyone would bitch this much.
Has no one read anything that's been written over the last 20+ years about online communities and how they grow and develop? Sometimes certain communities acquire users who are poison, who exist solely to destabilize and destroy that community because that is what gets them off. (Footnote: http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-...).
If I were the admins, I would use the very simple logic that, just like in real life, gasp, not all rules are written down, and there is no such thing as a rule that is black-and-white. Someone has to judge. More importantly, this community like all small villages can be whipped up into a frenzy over issues of no material concern. Notice how we lose KaVir in exchange for Cratylus – Why? KaVir thinks this is a website about gasp, programming and mud philosophy… Which would you rather have on a website like this one?
I'm not dead yet! I'm also not that nice, and not prone to flouncing :wink: But I appreciate the sentiment.
For the record, I don't have a problem with either Cratylus or the ban. Crat can have a sharp tongue at times, and he's trodden on quite a few toes over the years - but he also posts the occasional gem, and doesn't derail constructive threads.
I might suggest, kind sir, that you have perhaps not seen KaVir pk people on forums, crushing them like bugs. He seems more aware than you, I think, that there is a time to be nice, and a time not to be nice.
You may also be unaware of some of the constructive efforts I'm a part of in the mudding community. Even if this is so, I would hope I would have at least the benefit of doubt, in that when I am not-nice, I usually have a good point, and in making my good points, have participated in the improvement of the policies around here.
I might venture further to ask if you yourself are sure you are being nice. And if not, perhaps you agree that enforced constant niceness is not only unnecessary, but outright counterproductive as a policy.
it's certainly very hard to tell who the "newbies" actually are on IMC…
How would you propose we identify them?
I'll describe how I do it on i3, youse guyse can tell me to what extent it's applicable elsewhere.
The analog to ichat on i3 is a channel called "imud_gossip" (sometimes nicknamed intergossip or ig).
That channel is not encouraged for newbies. Indeed it is off by default on Dead Souls muds, and when a new person arrives, the first thing I tell them is that intergossip is a wretched hive of villany and they should only hang out on channels like dchat which are PG-13 and meant to be civil and newbie-friendly.
If the newcomer insists on staying on intergossip despite the dire warnings, what they most often find is typical intermud chat, which sometimes degenerates into locker-room filth, and on occasion, barroom brawling complete with kickin' and a-bitin'. Not that often, but, hey. Sometimes people do that.
So anyway, as long as the newcomer doesn't actually jump into brawl, I consider them protected by CratShield(TM), so that someone trying to stomp them gets a solid chop or two from me as a reward. And you know my chops sting.
What eventually happens is that the newbie either goes "ug no thanks" and leaves the locker room, or they take off the high heels and grin and start slappin backs and fartin along with everyone else. This evolution is hard to document in a rigorous scientific way, but You Know It When You See It. That is when the CratShield(TM) pops, and they are on their own.
Of course, if they hang around long enough in the locker room doing their babe-in-the-woods routine, people quickly enough identify them as a CratShield(TM) malingerer. Again, hard to quantify, but some of the clues are subtle-and-deniable jabs from behind the shield, while ducking behind my large, imposing figure. Usually I dispel the shield for them at that point and give em a good boot-in-the-ass shove into the slavering crowd.
It works pretty well, with the obvious requirement that there be more than just one active channel on the network, and practical choices of spiciness between the channels.
[ichat] Kayle@MW: The fact that they were changed as they were posted though, and then someone was punished within 20 minutes of them being posted, without any kind of warning to the IMC community (some of which don't frequent MudBytes) is unacceptable. An effort to alert the people using the network would have sufficed.
I think this sums up the problem very well without resorting to douchebaggery.
I don't have a problem with the idea of "unwarranted hostility" being forbidden as long as it really is both of those things. Newbies aren't special; it's not like they're the only people who can get offended and leave the community. Hell, we stand to lose just as much (if not more) by having a long-standing member leave in disgust. To come back to what Kayle said, there was an insufficient warning period here, and the first offense* after the rules change led to a ban. That's not good policy, and that's what needs to change.
*Was it the first time that Crat said something hostile after the change? Maybe, probably not, and it doesn't matter because no warning was given that I am aware of. This would be rather like a cop pulling over a high school student for speeding and then issuing twelve citations because "You've sped in the past, but I didn't write you a ticket for it!" even though that kid has never been pulled over for speeding before.
I've never hid my biased. I've already stated I don't like the guy, and care for little of what he says. And after the constant abuse I've received from him, why would I?
If you were appearing in this drama purely as a private citizen, Davion, that would be an acceptable sentiment for you to express. For an admin to say that, however, is absolutely beyond the pale.
You know, when I started out reading this thread, I actually wanted to be on your side. I really did. I don't have access to the entirety of the original IMC conversation, but, based on the quoted section that has been posted a couple of times, I'd say that, while some of what Crat was saying may have had a valid underlying point, the way he said it was boorish at best, and at worst downright provocative. I'd agree that it merited a warning, maybe even a short-term ban.
But every post of yours that I've read in this thread has strengthened the feeling that I simply don't want to be on your side no matter what the original facts may have been. Everything you've said makes you sound like a conceited, self-satisfied, arrogant man who feels that he is entitled to behave in an arbitrary, dictatorial fashion, and that the rules do not apply to him.
As an admin, you have to be better than that.
When a member of the public unreasonably favours or disfavours someone because of their own emotional agenda, it may not be that much of a problem. But if a policeman persistently harasses someone simply because he doesn't like him, and makes full use of his official powers to do it… or if a judge sends someone to prison for three times as long as the offence merits because he personally dislikes him… or if a president declares war on another country because of a personal slight from its leader… then it becomes a far more serious matter. The higher the office, the greater the responsibilities that go with it.
As an admin, you must and will be held to a far higher standard of behaviour than an ordinary member would. You have responsibilities, as well as powers. As an admin, you must leave behind your emotions and personal prejudices behind and act in the interests of the community, not in the interests of your own personal agenda.
If, as you have repeatedly admitted in this thread, you are unwilling or unable to fulfill the functions of an admin without allowing your personal agenda to repeatedly cloud your professional judgement, then the time has come for you to step down in favour of someone who is able to do the job you patently cannot.
In case anyone is reading this last page and considering going back to the first to read through this train wreck, it is not worth it. You will be confused about exactly what the problem is for several pages, and then you will be further confused as to how much effort can be spent by those involved in talking at people who aren't interested in hearing anyway. Then you will remember how you used to spend your time this way and decide to do some talking at people of your own before forcing yourself to move on.
Goodbye thread and the twenty minutes of my life I spent reading you.