A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Things are going swimmingly here, apparently.

I vaguely recall making a comment years ago noting the civil and relatively sophisticated behavior of the forum members here, compared to other strategy and gaming rooms. There were spirited disagreements from which came no resolution, compromise, etc. Eventually the parties involved simply agreed to disagree, and moved on with some humor and a change of subject, and that was it.

There was also an air of self-reliance regarding finding answers to questions. Someone asks a question and they're either given an answer or pointed to where they can find the answer. In the latter case that person should then be able to look for and discover the answer for themselves, learning a lot more than they initially bargained for in the process. But responding with the notion that their question instead be answered then and there, simply because they asked it, is annoying. I agree that Alfred could be coarse at times but I always valued his knowledge - though by no means is he the only knowledgeable person in the forums - and whatever objective response you got from him was solid.

I don't know that I'm making a point here. I guess I'm trying so say that I don't want to see this forum descend into the politically correct stupidity we see poisoning our society. Blatantly insulting and deliberately demeaning behavior should not be tolerated. Obviously. But we're all adults here and I think we can handle ourselves in frank discussions over controversial topics, without community enforcement guidelines enabling someone to clamp down on the community because they personally didn't like what was said.

+1 on all of that.

I have seen where people who try to force other people to agree to their point of view get very insulting when people dispute them. They would get rather forceful which is why some people have not returned to the forum. Much was lost there, especially about posting trees on an AAR which then received 6 pages of comments with no action in the game which drove his opponent nuts!

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Things are going swimmingly here, apparently.

I vaguely recall making a comment years ago noting the civil and relatively sophisticated behavior of the forum members here, compared to other strategy and gaming rooms. There were spirited disagreements from which came no resolution, compromise, etc. Eventually the parties involved simply agreed to disagree, and moved on with some humor and a change of subject, and that was it.

There was also an air of self-reliance regarding finding answers to questions. Someone asks a question and they're either given an answer or pointed to where they can find the answer. In the latter case that person should then be able to look for and discover the answer for themselves, learning a lot more than they initially bargained for in the process. But responding with the notion that their question instead be answered then and there, simply because they asked it, is annoying. I agree that Alfred could be coarse at times but I always valued his knowledge - though by no means is he the only knowledgeable person in the forums - and whatever objective response you got from him was solid.

I don't know that I'm making a point here. I guess I'm trying so say that I don't want to see this forum descend into the politically correct stupidity we see poisoning our society. Blatantly insulting and deliberately demeaning behavior should not be tolerated. Obviously. But we're all adults here and I think we can handle ourselves in frank discussions over controversial topics, without community enforcement guidelines enabling someone to clamp down on the community because they personally didn't like what was said.

I personally liked what you said.

[tolsdorff]

Then too think, if only, back before this started, the rules-infringing image of a vagina-fruit was removed and a warning was left on that 'now gone' topic too keep it civil, most, if not all, of this drama could have been avoided.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

Then too think, if only, back before this started, the rules-infringing image of a vagina-fruit was removed and a warning was left on that 'now gone' topic too keep it civil, most, if not all, of this drama could have been avoided.

warspite1

But that suggests that all, or indeed most, of 'this' has happened because of one image. That is not the case. There are a number of strands to all of this.

There was nothing uncivil about the picture, there was nothing uncivil about the pin-up art. There was nothing uncivil about the depiction of 'Kali'. Its not about civility, but it is about the changing times that we live in and Matrix decision to adopt the Derby House Principles.

Australian Beauties (in the GD forum) and Things to Ponder (in this) fell foul, in Matrix eyes, of what the Derby House Principles are trying to achieve.

We may agree with these principles, disagree or shades in between, but Matrix have made their decision, and we have a choice as to whether we respect that decision and go along with it or not (in which case, like DD696 we leave).

The question of civility or otherwise comes with the banning of an individual and has been discussed heavily over the last few days (so I'm not adding anymore to that). We will have an answer from Erik soon on whether he will 'cut the Gordion Knot' as has been suggested or not. But whatever decision is taken, hopefully that will be the last word on that and as others have said, we can then all move on.

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

..
There was nothing uncivil about the picture, there was nothing uncivil about the pin-up art. There was nothing uncivil about the depiction of 'Kali'. Its not about civility, but it is about the changing times that we live in and Matrix decision to adopt the Derby House Principles.
..

I couldn't agree more.

Let's hope we can all move on soon, with or without Alfred.

[Ian R]

It won't just be without Alfred.

[littleike]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

It won't just be without Alfred.

Me too but new users don't knew him as we that haved the time in the years to appreciate his knowledge.
The risk that someone treated with rudeness at his first attemps to ask something
will return nomore is real.

Many of users here think it will not be a great loss because the help Alfred give to the knowledge
of the game is far superior to all the rest giving their grognard attitude.
But how many who never have seen a wargame and are not expert could grow if only they will not be given the time to
look around. Many expert players here has been always kindly with unskilled who asked here.

I understand why the moderators want this site to be the more inclusive they can.
I have well in my mind that more people come here more WitpAE copies are sell, the more
the game is supported the more a new game will be developed first or after.
This will be a good thing for all us.

How may we not take in consideration this side of the story!!

Look at what is happening now. Site is talking about Alfred and the community is divided
between them who defend him and others who think he has sometime crossed the line.

I have always been glad if i have seen a word from him saying:

Well if so many think so maybe sometime i has been a bit rude so i will take it into account. Go all we on and close the question.

I think there will be a standing ovation from this.

But what is he doing?

Nothing!! and i think that he is reading every word of this forum.

Again the Zarathustra super man attitude " you look high and i look down because i am just high"

Everyone can make a mistake from either side of the barricade and there is a hand here to shake and go forward. I have seen it very well.

Hope this could happen.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

Then too think, if only, back before this started, the rules-infringing image of a vagina-fruit was removed and a warning was left on that 'now gone' topic too keep it civil, most, if not all, of this drama could have been avoided.

warspite1

But that suggests that all, or indeed most, of 'this' has happened because of one image. That is not the case. There are a number of strands to all of this.

There was nothing uncivil about the picture, there was nothing uncivil about the pin-up art. There was nothing uncivil about the depiction of 'Kali'. Its not about civility, but it is about the changing times that we live in and Matrix decision to adopt the Derby House Principles.

Australian Beauties (in the GD forum) and Things to Ponder (in this) fell foul, in Matrix eyes, of what the Derby House Principles are trying to achieve.

We may agree with these principles, disagree or shades in between, but Matrix have made their decision, and we have a choice as to whether we respect that decision and go along with it or not (in which case, like DD696 we leave).

The question of civility or otherwise comes with the banning of an individual and has been discussed heavily over the last few days (so I'm not adding anymore to that). We will have an answer from Erik soon on whether he will 'cut the Gordion Knot' as has been suggested or not. But whatever decision is taken, hopefully that will be the last word on that and as others have said, we can then all move on.

Could you please stop repeating yourself. I chastised you for gaslighting Truegrit, and your response was to personally attack me as being "stupid" and "mouthing stupidities" (*may not be an exact quote, but stupid was in there a couple of times). Were you deliberately trying to escalate the situation?

How about you back down and apologise for insulting Truegrit and I? Did it ever occur to your offensive language in this thread is part of the problem here, not part of the solution?


Now, quite separately, message to Erik:

Warspite personally attacked me on this thread - by referring to me as stupid and belittling my posts in a disparaging way, etc. Apparently I showered him with stupidity or something. He attacked first. I have just given him a shot back across the bows.

In my view, there is no need for you to get involved, or spend time on it. We'll sort it out. I don't want you to ban him, I want him to keep posting, so I can puncture his pomposity balloon again.

On the other hand, if you don't want this sort of robust exchange here, just say so*. I won't trouble you again.

[*And in accordance with your stated policy, that rather means you need to ban Warspite, because he attacked first.]

[Zovs]

What? Scratching my head on this exchange. I did not see any one calling someone “stupid” maybe I missed something, I don’t get it.

But I am just a DAT so what do I know lol.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

What? Scratching my head on this exchange. I did not see any one calling someone “stupid” maybe I missed something, I don’t get it.

But I am just a DAT so what do I know lol.

warspite1

Very simple:

I asked Trugrit a question.

Ian R decided he didn't like the manner of the question and that I was 'gaslighting' and 'imposing' my view (see post 181)

I said I thought that was nonsense. I can't see how I was imposing a view by asking a question, nor do I really understand the reference to 'gaslighting'.

Now Ian R has decided that I am repeating myself, even though I was simply giving my opinion on a comment by tolsdorff.

I think that is it?

[Orm]

Been an interesting thing to follow this thread.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs

What? Scratching my head on this exchange. I did not see any one calling someone “stupid” maybe I missed something, I don’t get it.

But I am just a DAT so what do I know lol.

warspite1

Very simple:

I asked Trugrit a question.

Ian R decided he didn't like the manner of the question and that I was gaslighting and 'imposing' my view (see post 181)

I said I thought that was nonsense. I can't see how I was imposing a view by asking a question, nor do I really understand the reference to gaslighting.

Now Ian R has decided that I am repeating myself, even though I was simply giving my opinion on a comment by tolsdorff.

I think that is it?

You're quite right Warspite, it was "talking nonsense" rather than "stupid". And yes you did gaslight truegrit, even though you are denial about it.

Same same, still an insult, and on Erik's stated policy, you personally attacked first.

Up to Erik what happens next.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs

What? Scratching my head on this exchange. I did not see any one calling someone “stupid” maybe I missed something, I don’t get it.

But I am just a DAT so what do I know lol.

warspite1

Very simple:

I asked Trugrit a question.

Ian R decided he didn't like the manner of the question and that I was gaslighting and 'imposing' my view (see post 181)

I said I thought that was nonsense. I can't see how I was imposing a view by asking a question, nor do I really understand the reference to gaslighting.

Now Ian R has decided that I am repeating myself, even though I was simply giving my opinion on a comment by tolsdorff.

I think that is it?

You're quite right Warspite, it was "talking nonsense" rather than "stupid". And yes you did gaslight truegrit, even though you are denial about it.

Same same, still an insult, and on Erik's stated policy, you personally attacked first.

Up to Erik what happens next.

warspite1

Thank-you for clarifying.

[Zovs]

Well I don’t see any attack here, but I was in the Army and was called far worse then nonsense. So I still don’t see any attacks.

I’ll have to look up what gaslighting means, it’s not in DATs vocabulary.

[Zovs]

Well I read the definitions and the only ones I liked and understood were the gas lamp ones, the others were too complicated for us DATs.

[Ian R]

So was I (inafntry), which is why I suggested I'd deal with warspite and sort out his pompous ad hominen posts by myself.

But that does not seem to be the preferred way forward here.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Well I read the definitions and the only ones I liked and understood were the gas lamp ones, the others were too complicated for us DATs.

warspite1

This is what one website said:

In the vernacular, the phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people.

Sadly, I don't know what a DAT is either, but maybe I am one because I can't relate the above to me asking a question of another forum member.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

So was I, which is why I suggested I'd deal with warspite and sort out his pompous ad hominen posts by myself.

But that does not seem to be the preferred way forward here.

warspite1

Ian R, I am not sure what you mean by preferred way. If you believe I have broken forum rules then please report me. I don't believe I have, but then, I am not a moderator.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Well I read the definitions and the only ones I liked and understood were the gas lamp ones, the others were too complicated for us DATs.

warspite1

This is what one website said:

In the vernacular, the phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people.

Sadly, I don't know what a DAT is either, but maybe I am one because I can't relate the above to me asking a question of another forum member.

Do you need to have your offensive language to truegrit quoted back to you?

[Zovs]

DAT

In the Army the crunchies (infantrymen) and mechs (mechanics) used to lovingly (or at least we thought) called us Dumb Assed Tankers or DAT for short.