New forum and policy

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Clinton and I are reasonably cetain that the poster Falconis is responsible for the recent 40 minutes of downtime, by overloading the server with some kind of email ("Denial of service"). We've taken the various administrative steps you take when that happens.

There is now a new forum on the Forge, called the Inactive File, into which all such posts as his beginning one, and the recent abusive one, will be routinely moved. In these cases, no ghost topic will remain in the original forum.

The posts will of course be preserved for posterity and documentation (i.e. not deleted). The Inactive File forum, as its title implies, will be a locked forum.

Best,
Ron (in consult with Clinton)

* whoops, we left a ghost topic for one of the threads by accident - the policy is not to do that, but hey, we're just figuring this out

[Brian Leybourne]

I just don't understand that kind of attitude (uh, I mean his, not yours).

"Hmm... that site is not for me, so I must try to spoil it for everyone else too". Truly bizarre. That's the same kind of mentality that writes viruses.

Brian.

[Valamir]

If I may, I do want to go on record as saying that I think the hammer came down on Falconis much too hard.  His site was game design related, not one of those silly "win by getting hits" sites.  It certainly belonged in Connections with a explanation of what Falconis Designs is and what they offer, but I don't think it was Spam.  It was a perfectly normal typical introductory post by someone whose biggest crime was not lurking long enough to learn that we do things differently here.

Further, this forum is called "Site Discussion".

From a certain perspective I can easily see how one would think that this is the forum where you talk about your own site.  

Honestly.  I'm more than a little embarassed by our initial treatment of him.  That certainly doesn't excuse his later response, but I hope we exercise a little more care in dealing with new posters in the future.

[greyorm]

While generally good advice, Ralph, I can't agree in this case.

Clinton called it spam, and he's right, though there's other ways to go about saying such, I don't see much problem with his reply to a "Hey, look at my site! Loooook!" post. Much more unacceptable was the individual's childish reply. Newbie or not, offended or not, that was simply unacceptable.

"Hey, that was uncalled for. I don't think my announcement is spam!" and some sort of explanation about the site or questions about why it was tagged as such are acceptable.

Subtle insinuations about Clinton's intellect (or lack of it) and sneering challenges to his authority because he "needs to learn to lock a thread" and that he "obviously doesn't know what spam is" are most definitely not acceptable. Understandable, perhaps, but still not acceptable.

Especially and especially when one walks into a community, doesn't bother to check out the rules or reasons for them, and and becomes incensed and insulting when it's rules of behavior do not conform to that individual's desires.

In cases like this, it is nothing more than hiding selfishness behind righteousness, and not a very mature method of response or dialogue.

Had the second post never appeared, with its insults towards the administrator and obviously nothing more than an attempt to spread ill-will and insult, perhaps I'd be less inclined to disagree with you, but not given the whole of the situation.

As I said, perhaps the response is understandable, but just because something is understandable does not make it acceptable.

[Valamir]

Well, as I said, it doesn't excuse his later response.

But a "look at my site" post made to the "site discussion" forum, where the site is a legitimate game design site is hardly spam.  Inappropriate newbie behavior, yes.  But rubbing his nose in it was, IMO also inappropriate

I agree that his subsequent behavior was childish and reprehensible.  But, honestly, I think we crossed the line.

[joe_llama]

Ron, Clinton, what about renaming this specific forum to "Forge site discussion" or a similar name?

Some people miss out on the little letters* and may cause these spam "accidents". It seems like an insignificant change but I figured "preventive treatment" may help in this case. It's like the difference between "pass me the salt" and "pass me the salt, please" - small and critical :)  

Cheers,
Nadav

*"This forum is for any requests or problems with indie-rpgs.com"

[A.Neill]

I suggest that after this little blip it might be time to look again at the "register-posting lag time" issue - where the newly registered cannot post for a designated period.

Sure if someone is determined to spam the site they will still be able to do it, but a little "getting to know you" time will increase the likelihood that those eager to sign up and post will discover the appropriate ettiquette threads and get a feel for the site and what is and is not appropriate.

Risks? The forge seems a little more elitist, may frustrate the newly regsitered a little and a useful post to a discussion from a newbie may be delayed.

Alan.

[Lxndr]

Was it a legitimate game site?  It looked like a computer RPG site...

[Emily Care]

I think it was a legit site. But I think the real problem was his approach.

On the same day, or thereabouts, a fella from England (www.pitt.uk) posted about his site onto this forum.  He got an entirely different welcome than did falconis. www.pitt etc. asked where he should post, and made a favorable comment about the Forge. Ron replied cordially. Falconis, on the other hand, simply asked for input on his own site and directed anyone who had interest to respond on his forum.  

I didn't see falconis' post per se as spam, but that _kind_ of post--of which these two are examples--certainly is.  

--EC

[Jack Aidley]

A post which just says 'Check out my site' and give a link is spam, regardless of what the link points to. I would hazard a guess that Clinton didn't even look at the site pointed to before condemning it. I, personally, try never to visit sites linked in this way; I feel it only encourages them.

I think Ralph is wrong; I think the post got the response it deserved.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I did look at Falconis' site - it appeared to be about computer/video role-playing games, not pen-and-paper role-playing games. (As a side note: man, we need new terminology. These two things are as different as go-carts and eighteen-wheelers.)

I do take Ralph's comments heavily, though. As I said to Ron yesterday, most spammers - and Falconis was one - post once and disappear. Making a slight bit of lightness at their expense is harmless. I was proven wrong, of course, by a spammer who stayed around.

[Valamir]

Just to make clear, when I said "we" in the above comments, I meant it as we as a community.  I noticed the same kind of unnecessary hostility towards Apeiron's first post from a variety of people at about the same time.  Fortuneately, he was big enough to let it slide.  

Generally speaking we've been much gentler at breaking in new posters, including those who make the mistake of thinking this is a CRPG site.

[TheRedSoup]

You guys don't know me.  I've posted a couple of times when I thought I might add 'two cents,' but otherwise I listen and learn.

Now I understand how someone (i.e. you guys) who has spent mega-time and mega-effort to develop this site into something good can get a little peeved at a sudden drop of a post like Falconis'.

To be objective, sure he screwed up.  He should have read more about the site and the rules.  Definitely.  But also, I think dropping the bomb on him like that was a bit rude.  Sometimes, like Apeiron's message, a person's thoughts don't get fully express into words.  Someone writing what they are thinking from the top of their head may express an idea in a way that no one else comprehended.  Everyone else may see a casual, elbow-in-ribs comment as an attack on their character, for instance.

Debates are great and arguments can be constructive, but words against someone's character, intelligence level, and other personal attributes should be left elsewhere.  I feel this forum is a place to express thoughts on games (the pen and paper variety of course) not school ground banter.

I hope my thoughts are agreeable and not seen as being demeaning and condescending.

As, my grandmother used to say, "Let's play nice."

Eric

[Walt Freitag]

Any suggestions on how to make the site better would be much appreciated, but please post it in my forum.

(emphasis added)

This is what, I believe, more than adequately justified the moderators' responses. The clear implication is that the poster has no interest in engaging in any discussion here. "Give me advice and feedback, but please do so only in a way that benefits only me." It's irrelevant, to that point, whether the site in question is about computer games, bird watching, or the most interesting and creative new indie role playing game we've ever seen.

It's really not the same as past cases where posters have arrived wanting to talk about CRPGs or war games or LARPs, but at least they had in mind to talk about them here, not to recruit people over to their place.

Now, as it turned out, this poster, unexpectedly (and completely contrary to the impression he'd given) did appear to care about the reaction to his post. "This is spam" didn't convey to him the nature of the objection to his approach, and we-as-a-community therefore might, a remote chance, have missed an opportunity to change his mind about engaging with us.

I would have responded the same, or worse, to the initial post. If Clinton or Ron can do better or wish to try to do better in the future, it reflects only on the height of the standards they set for themselves, not on any failings on their part.

- Walt

[Falconis]

Hey those were some good replys!!!