The stupid and counterproductive practice of closing threads because, allegedly, they contain "multiple topics", continues apace. I wonder if it might be possible to indicate to we mere mortals what these multiple topics might actually be, seeing as the original posters, by virtue of having posted them to the initial topic in the first place, probably do not think it is a separate topic at all.
To tell two people who are having a conversation that in fact they are having two different conversations implies you understand the initial conversation better then they do. If you can't be bothered to pass on this insight, all you are really doing is yelling "shut the fuck up".
Have you tried starting a new thread in one of these situations, Gareth? I mean, I won't be commenting one way or another about whether Ron is all loony, but the factual matter itself seems pretty minor to me, and definitely something that should be sampled in practice before judging. Who knows, it might be beneficient, whether Ron understands a given discussion or not. Heck, if Ron doesn't understand the discussion, then there's some reason to require restating it just so he (and presumably others) can understand it.
When and if Ron comes to your new thread and tells you to stop that, too, then I agree that there's a genuine conflict between you and the moderator. Positing such a conflict and even judging on it is far too premature until you actually try playing by Ron's rules.
Whenever I moderate, it's always fine to say "please look again, I think you're wrong this time." Strangely, when people do that, I do look again, and sometimes I go "hey, that was hasty," and fix it, publicly copping to my mistake.
But I don't do that when someone stamps their foot and directs invective at me. My only response then is, "My sandbox." Or more technically, "Yes, I do understand your conversation, or at least certain structural dynamics of it, better than you do."
Can I be wrong about that? Sure. Am I going to double-check, now? Nope. I don't treat the content of what someone says with respect when they couch it in internet snark and call me stupid.
Best, Ron
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on November 21, 2007, 02:08:04 PM
Have you tried starting a new thread in one of these situations, Gareth?
In the one occasion that I was able to discern a sub-topic, I did so. On all the other occasions I have had no idea what Ron meant.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 21, 2007, 03:07:10 PM
But I don't do that when someone stamps their foot and directs invective at me. My only response then is, "My sandbox." Or more technically, "Yes, I do understand your conversation, or at least certain structural dynamics of it, better than you do."
And I'm not inclined to be polite to people indulging in behaviour that would provoke physical violence if they did it to me in person.
I am perfectly willing to allow that you might discern something that the thread participants have not, but then give us some indication what it is.
That post is called the "hot and cold" game. Say one thing that's incredibly vicious, and follow it up with the reasonable thing you should have said in the first place. It's designed to hurt and to take the higher ground at the same time, as well as to confuse.
I don't play that game, and I'm getting tired of the larger game, too, which is "I feel annoyed so I will annoy you and make you pay attention to me."
Whatever validity there is in your reasonable point, it's out of the picture now. I've wasted way too much time on you today. Find something else to do.
Best, Ron
That is not a game, that is called restraint, despite how angry I am. Do not accuse me of playing games.
I would be more than happy to go away and do something else except you closed the fucking thread on which I was previously engaged. I suggest both of us would have been happier if you had left well enough alone.
I agree the thread locking is a bit out of hand.
I personally don't see any restraint in alluding to threats of physical violence against someone, just to get your way. It's a classless shot. The community here exists on the grounds that we are respectful to each other. All that had to be asked was "Can you look at this again?" but I think that option has evaporated with your posting above to be honest.
Given the general policy of not actually locking threads, but instead asking the posters to either start a new one for the new topic, or allowing the current one to die naturally, I find this thread to be a little questionable, myself. I've been here for years, and I've only seen Ron lock a handful of threads, and those only when he's said a thread is closed, and people deliberately ignored him, or in several cases, attacked him for it.
I haven't seen the thread that inspired this one, but I suspect that it was the case here, too, especially given the tenor of this one.
Also, contracycle has been around here at least as long as I have, and is well aware of the rules. They have been in place since well before I began posting. By now, I'd think, you'd grow used to it. I certainly have.. And I've had no problems PMing Ron when I disagreed with one of his calls in the past. Sometimes it's borne fruit, sometimes it hasn't, but courtesy is certainly the best course of action around here.
Quote from: contracycle on November 22, 2007, 02:27:04 PM
And I'm not inclined to be polite to people indulging in behaviour that would provoke physical violence if they did it to me in person.
This has to be your lowest point yet. How utterly distasteful! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Posted for clarity: no thread was locked. The new poster, shark087, is merely confused, at best. The thread in question is [ED&D] CA transience? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25179.0). Note the second-to-last post that precedes my final post in the thread.
Secondly, this thread, the one you're reading now, is open for commentary by anyone, as they see fit, although I don't really recommend it and am not calling for it. Please remember that the Forge is not a democracy and you will not be contributing a vote by posting. I've said my piece and am staying with my conclusion, so the content of the thread topic itself has been resolved.
One last thing: although this isn't something I can moderate, I can suggest that there's no need to address Gareth's conduct in this thread. It's not affecting me, and contrary to his implication, I haven't entered into an angry argument. As I see it, providing your opinion may even reinforce the troll-qualities of the posts.
Best, Ron
Gareth posted two more posts to this thread. I moved them to the Inactive File, where you can read them if you'd like (it's a forum way down toward the bottom of the main Forge page).
There comes a point when I say, your judgment is flawed and your social stance is not acceptable. Those posts are that point. They can sit with the spam and the "chek out my gam3" posts.
Best, Ron
Its funny that people will come to place and say "You do things stupidly here." And get offended and spew hate because of the response "Its too bad you feel that way, but that's how we do things here. If its too much for you don't come." I always wonder what the point of the argument is after that. "No, you will change how you do things here or I will stay and yell at you."
Oh, I did read the two posts earlier when they were here, but I can't find the inactive file where they now are. It makes me think that non-moderators can't see that forum or the threads within it.
Fuck. It's supposed to be public; in fact, it's fundamental to the Forge that it be public. Otherwise sending posts/threads there might as well be deleting them. If it's been inaccessible for any length of time, that was a serious error.
I'll email Vincent to make sure that's rectified right away.
Best, Ron
Fixed.
-Vincent
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 26, 2007, 01:45:24 AM
If it's been inaccessible for any length of time, that was a serious error.
I am sure it wasn't visible when I signed in and began to read regularly the forum (early 2006). I don't remember ever seeing that subforum even before that, but I am not sure about it.
It wasn't that long; the inactive file was available, at least to subscribers, before the latest forum change.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on November 27, 2007, 06:59:14 AM
It wasn't that long; the inactive file was available, at least to subscribers, before the latest forum change.
This would mean march, 2006 (I segned in April)
Time sure flies when you're having fun. Luckily, the Inactive File is not exactly the height of excitement as far as reading material goes.