A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: actrade

Message boards are forever about lines, with moderators having to enforce when a line is crossed. It is Matrix's forums so they set the lines. It is their property and they can do as they see fit. I have no issue with a private company saying, "this is the line, please don't cross it."

Spot on!!

I disagree with:
I do have an issue with anyone doling out bans prior to issuing a warning as there is rarely a case that is completely clear cut. If after a warning we don't agree, as customers we can simply vote with our feet and walk away.

Next question would be on how many warnings do you get.

Overall,(aimed at everyone, not actrade) If you dont like the way Matrix wants to run the forum, go somewhere else.
Sometimes it isnt the quantity of posters, but the quality.

[Kull]

"Quantity has a quality all its own" [;)]

[chazz]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Erik,

I find the arrogance both you and Edom evidence in presuming that any of us are going to "choose a hill to die on', as if this forum, and your business, are in any way, shape or form, something ANYONE is going to die for, absolutely appalling.

I will not continue participating in a forum infected by the cancerous scourge upon humanity known as feminism.

You have succeeded in divesting yourselves of this customer.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the backside on you way out. Jeez Louise, it's the 21st Century. You may want to pour yourself a mug of "Grow the Hell Up".

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.

Fourth, regarding the specifics of recent moderation. Let me start with when I first rocked the boat when I banned Alfred. I've explained this before and there was a lot of evidence in favor of that ban, but I should have for the sake of the community laid out the evidence clearly and in public and I should have issued a formal warning seen by the public before jumping to a ban. Hindsight has made that clear. My private messages with Alfred have also made it clear that he takes no responsibility for the bullying and personal attacks he was engaging in and unfortunately at this point, I'll be surprised if he ever agrees to the forum rules and returns. I don't think it's likely that handling that differently would have ended up differently with regards to Alfred, but I'm sure it would have helped a lot in terms of the community feeling less blindsided by that moderation decision.

This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

warspite1

Well this post is wrong on just about every count.

I see our track record of agreement continues.

Yes, Alfred was excellent in terms of his knowledge of the game, its rules and its mechanics. From that perspective he is missed. But then so was Symon....

I assume you haven't bothered to read the thread he received a temporary ban for (and plenty like it). If you had you would not have drawn the conclusions you have.

No, I followed it quite closely, and my conclusions have been well considered.

What effectively you are saying is that so long as one contributes helpful posts and tips every now and then, one can behave as one wishes. Well no, they can't.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you think that, then I encourage you to re-read my post.

A lot of people - including yourself - appear to suggest that there has been a lot wrong with posts and posters down the years, and that people have got away with too much. Well you appear to be selective in how consistently rules should be applied.

Me being selective in how consistently rules should be applies matters not one whit. It's not my decision to make, and I'm not in a position to act.

What does matters is how the rules are applied by those that can.

In Alfred's case, it's pretty clear. Matrix policy is for a warning and a ban. Alfred was banned without a warning, and there has yet to be a satisfactory explanation as to the grounds.

I think Alfred's messages to Erik - in which he takes no responsiblity or blame for his, often, bullying, condescending and thoroughly rude remarks says it all.

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

If you want change in behaviour, and for rules to be applied fairly, then that applies in all cases - not with a favoured few getting select and preferential treatment.

I'd like you to address the bolded in relation to my point above regarding application of moderation policy.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

1) The so-named has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics. Yet his constant attacks on newbies and vets alike regarding their posts and discussions with personal insults and a superiority complex was degrading to the forum community and turned off so many to being here. It was a very unwelcoming divided community under the so-named rule.

Yet, who was the one that was able to point to the developer commentary/posts in support of their position, without fail?

Alfred.

The contents of all those innumerable discussions involving "personal insults" and "superiority complex" can be summarized as:
- Overconfident forumite states X
- Alfred responds that X is wrong and the position is instead Y (typically with reference to developer comments on the subject).
- Overconfident forumite then turns surly at having their mistake highlighted in public.



I think we need to have a long look at the community if we're handing out bans for saying "You're wrong and here's why."

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.



This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

warspite1

Well this post is wrong on just about every count.

I see our track record of agreement continues.

Yes, Alfred was excellent in terms of his knowledge of the game, its rules and its mechanics. From that perspective he is missed. But then so was Symon....

I assume you haven't bothered to read the thread he received a temporary ban for (and plenty like it). If you had you would not have drawn the conclusions you have.

No, I followed it quite closely, and my conclusions have been well considered.

What effectively you are saying is that so long as one contributes helpful posts and tips every now and then, one can behave as one wishes. Well no, they can't.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you think that, then I encourage you to re-read my post.

A lot of people - including yourself - appear to suggest that there has been a lot wrong with posts and posters down the years, and that people have got away with too much. Well you appear to be selective in how consistently rules should be applied.

Me being selective in how consistently rules should be applies matters not one whit. It's not my decision to make, and I'm not in a position to act.

What does matters is how the rules are applied by those that can.

In Alfred's case, it's pretty clear. Matrix policy is for a warning and a ban. Alfred was banned without a warning, and there has yet to be a satisfactory explanation as to the grounds.

I think Alfred's messages to Erik - in which he takes no responsiblity or blame for his, often, bullying, condescending and thoroughly rude remarks says it all.

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

If you want change in behaviour, and for rules to be applied fairly, then that applies in all cases - not with a favoured few getting select and preferential treatment.

I'd like you to address the bolded in relation to my point above regarding application of moderation policy.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

1) The so-named has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics. Yet his constant attacks on newbies and vets alike regarding their posts and discussions with personal insults and a superiority complex was degrading to the forum community and turned off so many to being here. It was a very unwelcoming divided community under the so-named rule.

Yet, who was the one that was able to point to the developer commentary/posts in support of their position, without fail?

Alfred.

The contents of all those innumerable discussions involving "personal insults" and "superiority complex" can be summarized as:
- Overconfident forumite states X
- Alfred responds that X is wrong and the position is instead Y (typically with reference to developer comments on the subject).
- Overconfident forumite then turns surly at having their mistake highlighted in public.



I think we need to have a long look at the community if we're handing out bans for saying "You're wrong and here's why."

It appears like we actually agree on some things.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Alfred.

The contents of all those innumerable discussions involving "personal insults" and "superiority complex" can be summarized as:
- Overconfident forumite states X
- Alfred responds that X is wrong and the position is instead Y (typically with reference to developer comments on the subject).
- Overconfident forumite then turns surly at having their mistake highlighted in public.

Problem is that Alfred often responded that X is wrong and the position is instead Y in a patronizing, arrogant and schoolmasterly "I know it all and better than you" way that was often rude, bullying and offending. Yes, he knows almost all and better than the rest (although he is neither all-knowing nor infallible), but he has little appreciation for lesser minds than his own and for those who do not live up to his own high standards of research. A bit more modesty on his part may have prevented his forum fate.


Edit: The above is a side note, I wanted to comment on Erik's post. I understand that the Matrix is tightening its stance to "enforce civil behavior, good manners, a family-friendly atmosphere free of swearing and sexualized adult content" because some posts have clearly crossed the line. I have asked for clarification about my well-known sigpic showing the topless-but-censored "canoe girls" and was told to take it down - I have complied, albeit grudgingly. I have been using this sigpic since 2004, never got any complaints about it - on the contrary, it seemed to have been quite popular. I find it hard to understand that something that was ok for almost 18 years (!) is suddenly being considered as inappropriate. Apparently in our times "decency" is moving towards a more and more conservative interpretation, and in the case of "my girls" I ask myself if that "decency" thingy isn't being overdone and crossing a line towards prudery and somatophobia. I'll miss my sigpic, it had become part of my forum identity.

[kbfchicago]

This game and by extension its forum have provided me 1000s of hours of enjoyment almost since the day it was released, hopefully it shall continue to do so for many years to come.

Thank you Erik for taking the time and making the effort to reach out, explain, and open up to our community. I for one shall miss Alfred's informative posts and am disappointed at his loss, which I see as his choice. Perhaps after reflection he will reconsider. We have a wealth of his knowledge to look back on and as a community I am hopeful that together we all shall endeavor to step up with insightful, helpful, and courteous assistance for all those who engage our community.

Thank you in advance to all our members who continue to keep our space here focused on the game, having fun, learning history, and mutual respect.

Kevin

[Edmon]

ORIGINAL: Kull
Lastly we come to "Heavy handed moderation". Everyone in this forum watched - the majority, frankly in horror - as the events of yesterday went down. Before I continue, let's put things in perspective. Nobody died, and it was an entirely "textual" experience. But nevertheless, in the context of a decade-plus of community experience and interaction, it was a complete and total violation of all the norms of behaviour. And yes that certainly spread to several forum members who's responses were inappropriate at best. But it all began with the moderator. Here's what you said on that subject:

I've highlighted the important part. Let's be clear, within the span of a few hours, this moderator locked at least six threads, DELETED 4 or 5 of them (in order to "tidy up the forum", lol) and banned an as yet unknown number of forum members, many guilty of nothing more than trying to debate his actions, and most with no warning whatsoever. If all of that is "within his rights as a moderator", well I'm flabbergasted. To your credit, the statement on moderation practices going forward would appear to explicitly forbid that sort of gotterdammerung in the future, so thank you. Also, as a former manager and a fervent practitioner of "praise in public but punish in private", I can read between the lines and won't push it further here - but a PM will follow.

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

I would like people to understand, that my position in Slitherine is the Community Manager, largely for our Steam communities. Steam being, by far, our biggest area with the most gamers.

I was trained in, a long time ago now, the Steam Community Guidelines. These are Steam's gold standard for moderation, for what is the biggest gaming community on earth and they are widely replicated in other places.

These are the guidelines here:
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/v ... -C23E-EA7B

Let me highlight a few things which are normal for Steam but obviously, not the case here:

General Rules
Do not do any of the following:
> Post spam (i.e. +1, 10char, rickrolls) or Re-post Closed, Modified, Deleted Content
> Openly argue with a moderator

Another key difference is that warnings in our other communities and on steam are very serious, where as locking threads is not.

If you get warnings on steam, 3 of them will lead to an automatic ban from a games forums. Collect too many bans and you'll lose access to the entirety of steam's communities and workshops.

So locking threads is very much considered lite-touch on steam, where as warnings are actually extremely serious. No-one is punished when a thread is locked, only when they choose to reopen the thread and make the choice to continue arguing is it considered an issue.


I was acting simply in accordance with the official guidelines and values which I had been taught. I very quickly adapted my approach when I realized that the expectations here are very different.


I just want you guys to understand, by locking the thread I was trying to be lite-touch. I see warnings as incredibly serious because of the impact they can have on gamers if they get them (in our other communities, like steam). Warnings can and will, deny you access to modders forums, the steam workshop and potentially over time, the entire site.

We have gotten off on the wrong foot here, but my intent absolutely was to cause the least possible impact.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: Kull
Lastly we come to "Heavy handed moderation". Everyone in this forum watched - the majority, frankly in horror - as the events of yesterday went down. Before I continue, let's put things in perspective. Nobody died, and it was an entirely "textual" experience. But nevertheless, in the context of a decade-plus of community experience and interaction, it was a complete and total violation of all the norms of behaviour. And yes that certainly spread to several forum members who's responses were inappropriate at best. But it all began with the moderator. Here's what you said on that subject:

I've highlighted the important part. Let's be clear, within the span of a few hours, this moderator locked at least six threads, DELETED 4 or 5 of them (in order to "tidy up the forum", lol) and banned an as yet unknown number of forum members, many guilty of nothing more than trying to debate his actions, and most with no warning whatsoever. If all of that is "within his rights as a moderator", well I'm flabbergasted. To your credit, the statement on moderation practices going forward would appear to explicitly forbid that sort of gotterdammerung in the future, so thank you. Also, as a former manager and a fervent practitioner of "praise in public but punish in private", I can read between the lines and won't push it further here - but a PM will follow.

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

I would like people to understand, that my position in Slitherine is the Community Manager, largely for our Steam communities. Steam being, by far, our biggest area with the most gamers.

I was trained in, a long time ago now, the Steam Community Guidelines. These are Steam's gold standard for moderation, for what is the biggest gaming community on earth and they are widely replicated in other places.

These are the guidelines here:
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/v ... -C23E-EA7B

Let me highlight a few things which are normal for Steam but obviously, not the case here:

General Rules
Do not do any of the following:
> Post spam (i.e. +1, 10char, rickrolls) or Re-post Closed, Modified, Deleted Content
> Openly argue with a moderator

Another key difference is that warnings in our other communities and on steam are very serious, where as locking threads is not.

If you get warnings on steam, 3 of them will lead to an automatic ban from a games forums. Collect too many bans and you'll lose access to the entirety of steam's communities and workshops.

So locking threads is very much considered lite-touch on steam, where as warnings are actually extremely serious. No-one is punished when a thread is locked, only when they choose to reopen the thread and make the choice to continue arguing is it considered an issue.


I was acting simply in accordance with the official guidelines and values which I had been taught. I very quickly adapted my approach when I realized that the expectations here are very different.


I just want you guys to understand, by locking the thread I was trying to be lite-touch. I see warnings as incredibly serious because of the impact they can have on gamers if they get them (in our other communities, like steam). Warnings can and will, deny you access to modders forums, the steam workshop and potentially over time, the entire site.

We have gotten off on the wrong foot here, but my intent absolutely was to cause the least possible impact.

I do not use steam so I do not care what their standards are.

As far as moderators go, I could state something there about them but . . .

Getting off on the wrong foot? I could post something about that but I will not . . .

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.

Fourth, regarding the specifics of recent moderation. Let me start with when I first rocked the boat when I banned Alfred. I've explained this before and there was a lot of evidence in favor of that ban, but I should have for the sake of the community laid out the evidence clearly and in public and I should have issued a formal warning seen by the public before jumping to a ban. Hindsight has made that clear. My private messages with Alfred have also made it clear that he takes no responsibility for the bullying and personal attacks he was engaging in and unfortunately at this point, I'll be surprised if he ever agrees to the forum rules and returns. I don't think it's likely that handling that differently would have ended up differently with regards to Alfred, but I'm sure it would have helped a lot in terms of the community feeling less blindsided by that moderation decision.

This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

I won't go in to the optics of Alfred's banning, but suffice to say that the optics on it from a wider community perspective certainly could lead someone to the conclusion of favouritism in the moderation process, or that the moderation process was applied inconsistently.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

I think Erik deserves a more even-handed evaluation than this. I seriously doubt that Erik took action in cases where someone was or had been disparaging Alfred. It was clear to me that Alfred did what Erik said without provocation in many instances. What happened in other instances does not change that.

I too hope Alfred comes back, but I would not welcome seeing that conduct which Erik addressed.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Alfred.

The contents of all those innumerable discussions involving "personal insults" and "superiority complex" can be summarized as:
- Overconfident forumite states X
- Alfred responds that X is wrong and the position is instead Y (typically with reference to developer comments on the subject).
- Overconfident forumite then turns surly at having their mistake highlighted in public.

Problem is that Alfred often responded that X is wrong and the position is instead Y in a patronizing, arrogant and schoolmasterly "I know it all and better than you" way that was often rude, bullying and offending.

Care to give some examples?

Alfred's responses were direct and succinct, but to consider that as being the behaviour you describe simply reveals ignorance of working with individuals with a high degree of knowledge in a subject.

Yes, he knows almost all and better than the rest (although he is neither all-knowing nor infallible), but he has little appreciation for lesser minds than his own and for those who do not live up to his own high standards of research.

First, to point out that "his own high standards of research" implies that there are other standards of research, which is rarely the case.

Predominant instead is either:

1) zero effort questions that a cursory search of the forum, manual or FAQ threads would have answered
2) explanations/justifications involving a preconceived notion of how the game "should" handle X mechanic, with no effort to actually establish if this was the case.

Secondly, Alfred was always willing to engage with the spirit of a question that was asked. See innumerable considered responses where the author had the willingness to approach the question with a genuine open mind, and without clinging to a preconception and with sufficient maturity to accept that their knowledge was limited and a willingness to learn from others.

I had intended to go on at some length, but I think that your post, in principle, captures the effect that dual poisoning of pettiness and jealousy can have where individuals are unable to accept that they might be wrong, and that someone might know more about a topic than they do.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.

Fourth, regarding the specifics of recent moderation. Let me start with when I first rocked the boat when I banned Alfred. I've explained this before and there was a lot of evidence in favor of that ban, but I should have for the sake of the community laid out the evidence clearly and in public and I should have issued a formal warning seen by the public before jumping to a ban. Hindsight has made that clear. My private messages with Alfred have also made it clear that he takes no responsibility for the bullying and personal attacks he was engaging in and unfortunately at this point, I'll be surprised if he ever agrees to the forum rules and returns. I don't think it's likely that handling that differently would have ended up differently with regards to Alfred, but I'm sure it would have helped a lot in terms of the community feeling less blindsided by that moderation decision.

This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

I won't go in to the optics of Alfred's banning, but suffice to say that the optics on it from a wider community perspective certainly could lead someone to the conclusion of favouritism in the moderation process, or that the moderation process was applied inconsistently.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

I think Erik deserves a more even-handed evaluation than this. I seriously doubt that Erik took action in cases where someone was or had been disparaging Alfred. It was clear to me that Alfred did what Erik said without provocation in many instances. What happened in other instances does not change that.

I too hope Alfred comes back, but I would not welcome seeing that conduct which Erik addressed.

You don't need to go far back actually - plenty of cases of unsolicited ad hominem attacks on Alfred in the run up, all of which have seen zero consequences (to the best of my knowledge).

[mattj78]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.



This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

I won't go in to the optics of Alfred's banning, but suffice to say that the optics on it from a wider community perspective certainly could lead someone to the conclusion of favouritism in the moderation process, or that the moderation process was applied inconsistently.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

I think Erik deserves a more even-handed evaluation than this. I seriously doubt that Erik took action in cases where someone was or had been disparaging Alfred. It was clear to me that Alfred did what Erik said without provocation in many instances. What happened in other instances does not change that.

I too hope Alfred comes back, but I would not welcome seeing that conduct which Erik addressed.

You don't need to go far back actually - plenty of cases of unsolicited ad hominem attacks on Alfred in the run up, all of which have seen zero consequences (to the best of my knowledge).

i hope you agree there has been nil moderation of this forum from matrix for quite a while its quite interesting the sudden surge in interest from matrix

[Macquarrie1999]

Who cares about this picture silliness. Historical aircraft nose art within historical context is allowed but I cannot post fruit vaginas so I quit the forum this cracks me up

Well said lol. When I first saw that picture I instantly closed it. There are other places on the Internet to look at that kind of stuff.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Edmon

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

Let's take a close look at that claim:

1) The first post I directed specifically to you was post #35 in the "Ok it's time to go" thread

2) You responded in post #43 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

3) I replied in post #44

4) You responded in post #47 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

5) I replied in post #51

6) You responded in post #54 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

7) While I was typing out a response to that, you closed the thread in post #58. Again, no mention of "taking this to PM"

8) When my post was submitted, it went nowhere (obviously, since the destination thread was closed). As a result, and especially since there was no mention of "taking this to PM" at ANY POINT in our previous discussions, I created a new thread solely in order to continue the discussion - and explained that specifically at the top of the thread.

9) Your response in post #2 closed the new thread and instituted my ban. Again, not that it mattered at that point, there was no mention of "taking this to PM".

There's a word for those who make provably false claims, but out of respect for Eric I won't use it here.

[Edmon]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Edmon

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

Let's take a close look at that claim:

1) The first post I directed specifically to you was post #35 in the "Ok it's time to go" thread

2) You responded in post #43 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

3) I replied in post #44

4) You responded in post #47 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

5) I replied in post #51

6) You responded in post #54 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

7) While I was typing out a response to that, you closed the thread in post #58. Again, no mention of "taking this to PM"

8) When my post was submitted, it went nowhere (obviously, since the destination thread was closed). As a result, and especially since there was no mention of "taking this to PM" at ANY POINT in our previous discussions, I created a new thread solely in order to continue the discussion - and explained that specifically at the top of the thread.

9) Your response in post #2 closed the new thread and instituted my ban. Again, not that it mattered at that point, there was no mention of "taking this to PM".

There's a word for those who make provably false claims, but out of respect for Eric I won't use it here.

I apologise for paraphasing. What I wrote was, and I felt that it was quite clear:

"However, why we no longer allow the sexualization of women on our forums is a topic that is now closed for discussion. We have made our position clear and we ask you, to please respect that position."

Which, meant that I was asking everyone to refrain from continuing the topic on the forums. Which is normal practise elsewhere in our communities.

This leaves PM open to you. In PM you were more than welcome to continue the discussion with me or Erik or whomever you feel the issue needs to be brought to, privately.

It was, as far as I remember, the second time I had politely requested this discussion come to a close.

Anyway, I will not be adding any more to these threads because I feel that they have become entirely circular, generate only bad feelings, no-ones position will change on how they feel about the new policy.

This is a discussion we also could have had in private, with Erik or myself as you felt was needed. Keeping these forums welcoming and about the game, as I think everyone feels they should be.

I will, as always, remain reachable via PM.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.


With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

As said, Alfred's knowledge and contribution to this forum should not have given him a free pass - though as in the case of Symon, it did give him too much room to continually act poorly without sanction, and for too long - as though he were an untouchable.

As for the 'without warning' comment. Well that may be true (I don't know whether PM's were exchanged and Admiral DadMan's warning was only a short while before Erik's post). But given Alfred's repeat offending and total inability to admit he ever did anything wrong, I think this would have made no difference to the outcome.

[Yaab]

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

I hope MarkShot is OK and browses this forum offline.

[actrade]

As a long time strategy gamer and GG games in particular, I was VERY late in picking up WiTP:AE, having chose to stay in Europe with prior WWII games. I have asked many questions in other Matrix forums and sometimes, you get the "manual, page 122" response, which I believe is perfectly fine and helpful. However, a "RTFM" response with no page/chapter given to someone taking the time to come to the forums and ask a question in not fine, nor are derogatory comparisons to idiots, kids, etc. These types of responses are intended to interject some kind of superiority over the original poster plain and simple. I say to these people, "have you ever considered simply not responding if you think the question moronic?" FWIW, I do read the manual cover to cover, but that doesn't mean I completely understand all aspects or didn't miss something. Human history if full of instances of a select few acting as guardians of enlightenment ostensibly because the masses were too ignorant to understand (think the Bible/Church masses in Latin for centuries, high priests from antiquity, etc.) In truth, these "guardians" were merely perpetuating their own importance while staring down their noses at those who they believed were unworthy or unable to comprehend.

With that said, I'll be honest I was quite shocked at the level of vitriol leveled by some at those sincerely asking questions on this forum (certainly not all, as most were very helpful and respectful). I can't say I've seen that on other Matrix forums (of course there are always a few) with the regularity I've seen here. What's baffling to me is that we are a niche group (and some would argue that WiTP:AE is a niche game within a niche group due to it's complexity) that share a common hobby that one would think would be as welcoming as possible in order to grow the genre. Back to the religion analogy, imagine a preacher telling his congregation they're all idiots and going to hell because they don't understand the Bible as well as he? Wouldn't his religion be better served by helping his faithful come to a better understanding of the Bible rather than throwing it at them?

I'm 56 and the father of six, with my three adult boys all gamers. Whilst I would love to see them share my passion for strategy games, they in fact do not. What I will tell you is that the "youtube" generation isn't likely to read a manual cover to cover and that's ok, they learn in their own way. I shudder to think how they would be treated by some if they did decide to give it a try and come on the forums and ask a question without having read the 300-500 page manuals some of our games come with. I still have my original Falcon 4.0 hard cover manual and gladly paid extra for the wonderful WiTE2 hard cover manual, which I have spent many a night reading while my family watches TV. I recently had the WiTP:AE PDF manual professionally bound and copied so I could do the same with it. My family just shakes their heads and laughs when I undertake a new game as that's about the only time they see me reading in book format.

While I can't speak for Erik and Matrix, I would venture a guess that civility on the forums doesn't end with posting questionable photos. I believe they understand that to grow their business, they are trying to lay the groundwork for a more welcoming community, be it what's posted in text or in photos. Ultimately, they run a business and these forums exist here to promote and help sell their games, period. If we believe their are too heavy-handed in their moderation, we are free to head to reddit or other boards without much if any moderation. However, that only serves to further dilute our genre.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: actrade

imagine a preacher telling his congregation they're all idiots and going to hell because they don't understand the Bible as well as he?

To be fair, that worked quite well for about 1000 years, when the bible was only available in Latin.

If we believe their are too heavy-handed in their moderation, we are free to head to reddit or other boards without much if any moderation.

I agree. Although I do not know if matrix is concerned, or not, with the loss of many collective years of experience, with this game, from this forum. Perhaps their overall objectives are willing to bear that cost.