Twice in the last month, Ron's closed threads when people proved themselves not capable of handling the topic. Both times, I've gone to bat and said, "Hey - person A and B were really trying on that thread and making some progress." Interestingly enough, they were both related - the other thread was Line-by-line replies, and the second thread should be closed because of Contracycle's impressive example of a line-by-line reply and how it breaks down communication. I've been very, very wrong both times - the threads should have been closed because certain members of the Forge just can't play well with others.

Contracycle took three statements out of context because they offended his sensibilities taken alone. (I've read all three in context, and they seem fine to me, but hey - cc thinks I'm a sexist boor, so what do I know?) We cannot have honest discussion on this board when we throw a temper tantrum every time someone says something we don't like. (Trust me on this. I know. Ron's talked me out of pulling the plug on this place because of people saying things I didn't like.) We also cannot have good discussion when you stomp all over the current topic and turn it into your political/socal/whatever forum, which I've talked about with Contracycle before.

No one will ever be banned from the Forge, but I wanted to today because of this incredible display of disregard and disrespect for the Forge and the people who work hard to make it what it is.

Yes, you're absolutely right that we cannot have an honest discussion on this board if someone throws a temper tantrum every time someone says something we dislike.

Clinton,

If I may...

I've read through the problem child thread twice now. The incendiary factor appears to be neither line by line response nor out-of-context quoting, but the aggressive, dismissive tone of contracycle's wording, which I agree is unnecessarily provocative. I fancy contracycle could easily have made the same points with less vitriol. Content-wise, he's not saying anything extraordinary. All he's done in my view is restated the thread's conclusion about industry marketing, dismissed the idea that elements of gender behavior are influenced by genetics rather than social environment, and asserted that sexism in gaming isn't merely a perception (at least according to the gestalt conclusion already reached in the thread). I find these assertions reasonable (doesn't mean I agree), even if the way he couched them was combative.

I do think this is a prime example of a poster choosing to escalate tension and provoke a heated emotional response. A certain degree of acerbic tension is OK in my book, but when it comes off like a smackdown, it risks derailing the discussion.

Best,

Blake

Hello,

Gareth, like it or not, Clinton and I are the administrators. Clinton objected to your behavior - and I think Blake has described it accurately, in terms which show why it's not a "him vs. you" issue - and therefore you're being told not to do that again. It's pretty simple.

Best,
Ron