The Glade 4.0

I know we're not taking votes, but IMO, Hellfire should be no holds barred, anything goes, short of something that's a federal crime (I dunno, using it to track someone IRL and beat them down, or kiddie porn, stuff like that).

They're just words, people. That's why we have a separate forum for this stuff, isn't it? The veneer of civility is razor thin here. We can all be pretty big douchebags from time to time. Why should Monte get singled out?

_________________

You're an idiot, TheRiov.

Agreed.

_________________

And Lex actually makes a very good point. There's always the ignore feature.

_________________

Thanks for the update.

Hmmmms ... ironic.I think you need to familiarize yourself with this thread ...

viewtopic.php?p=85901#p85901
viewtopic.php?p=86679#p86679
viewtopic.php?p=86685#p86685

viewtopic.php?p=86695#p86695

viewtopic.php?p=86701#p86701


So, Mookhow actually made a Moderator/Administrator Request

And, of course, Montegue made this post assaulting every "Not Montegue" poster on the forum in a serious community discussion about Moderation or not ...

viewtopic.php?p=86142#p86142

_________________

I would be fine if everyone ignored me. I mostly go to the Glade for observational purposes.

'Bout time. This place was more pleasant when he wasn't around.

_________________
The Dude abides.

We've made the "you can ignore him" argument before.

But not everyone does, and he derails every single thread he gets into.

Recently, he's even admitted he doesn't care about the community any more, he just comes here to spout his opinion and watch people get upset. How is that not classic trolling?

Either way, he was detrimental to the community. In a large way. I'm not saying he was the only one, or it was all his fault, but he played a much larger role in degrading the quality of the discussion around here than anyone else, imo, and I'm not sad at all to see that he's gone.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

He wasn't singled out. His behavior went outside of Hellfire, by taking an issue that started outside hellfire, and making blanket accusations against the moderation of the whole board, not just "Hellfire moderation" and in particular an admin who doesn't want to participate in Hellfire.

TheRiov, quit your bellyaching. So some other people have occasionally done things you don't like. So what? None of them have acted like complete douchebags over and over and over and over like Monty did. Intensity and frequency of behavior matter. Moreover, Mookhow does all the work to maintain this board. If he wants to avoid Hellfire, fine. If he gets dragged in here by people accusing him of totally absurd conspiracies and decides not to tolerate it, that's small compensation for him for he work he's done.

People seem to forget that this board is something that requires effort to maintain. People can complain about consistency, fairness, how the rules "should" be all they want, but ultimately if you want someone to do the actual work to make it go, don't piss them off.

As for the ignore feature, that was always a stupid argument to make. Ignore is for people to ignore people over personal issues. The entire forum shouldn't have to ignore one guy just to avoid banning him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Meh, I've done my share of internet forum moderation. It's not an enviable position. It's a lot of work. I'd say it's like running a special ed class, but that would be an insult to special ed students I can sympathize. Nevertheless, and I've had this argument plenty of times in other lives, but I prefer less moderation to more. In general, banning people that you don't agree with degrades the overall character and style of the board. (In other words, it's no fun to hang around people that just agree with you all the time.) I know this is not a democracy and I'm not expecting to really have any impact, but there's my two cents. The fact that Mookhow created this thread is a good indication that he is at least thinking in that direction.



I've seen four or five people arguing with the guy on a regular basis. I'm not sure if that's the entire forum. While I don't agree with some of the things he said, it never got to the point where I wanted to put him on ignore. Even if the guy insulted my wife or something, it's my option to ignore him, instead of running to the people in charge and asking for him to be exiled for ever and ever. I think it's a valid argument, but that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

_________________

I use "ignore" more as a reminder to myself than anything. Having to hit the link at the end of "This post was made by Soandso who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post." is a feedback mechanism that enforces the fact that it's my decision to read the post.

There are some few folks that I could easily knee-jerk respond to and I don't want to do that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

OMG the mods WERE out to get him!!!!!!

I guess my preference would be that everyone else STFU and stop dogpiling on him when he says stupid **** and stop derailing, but that clearly wasn't going to happen.

I'm unhappy but not necessarily in disagreement.

I think this is a red-letter day. Monte played on the edge of the cliff for a very long time and finally he fell off.

_________________

I think he just created this thread for cathartic reasons. As for less vs more, we're way into "Less". Monty didn't get banned because people disagreed with him; he got banned because all he was doing was taking a **** all over the place. Essentially he was no different than Bery in that respect. The difference was that Bery knew he couldn't stop coming here and working himself into a froth and asked to be banned; Monty just kept being a bigger and bigger douchebag.



You've also had a very very long break where you weren't around at all. If he insulted your wife in every thread day in and day out even when people were talking about something else entirely, you'd run out of patience eventually.

There are a lot more people that have argued with him, too. A lot of them just gave up. Some of us didn't for various reasons. In my case it was because there were a lot of assertions in his posts that simply weren't accurate, or contined hidden assumptions that I see people failing to question in everyday life. If there are lurkers out there (and a couple have started posting a bit recently) I feel that his assumptions shouldn't have been given free reign.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

*shrug* I've got several people who insult me in every thread day in and day out. We don't ban them.

Popularity matters.

I was lurking but reading the forums daily. Was a problem with email and access at work. Farsky hooked me up on I think it was version two, but the forums went boom the next week and I started over. Anyway, that's getting way off topic.

(And no, I would have put him on ignore after like the first time and wouldn't see the responses anymore. Either that or said something banworthy in my first response )

_________________

Quite honestly, I think you share the same problematic definition of "insult" that Monte had. I didn't insult you in general. I didn't attack you or cast aspersions on whatever you think your mastery of the English language happens to be. I indicated that a comparison to Nabokov was not functionally valid. However, I did give you the moniker Captain Victim Card. And I have been rather critical and persistent in my criticism of your behavior.

_________________

Given that this community doesn't have rules, I disagree with the banning at this point in time.

In principle, however, I'm very glad to see him gone and hope he stays so, as I believe the environment as a whole be much less toxic.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I didn't single you out either. But yes, you have degenerated into childish namecalling.

And I'm not the only one who took your message as insulting. The moderators clearly felt you were out of line too, indicating the problem was your ability to communicate, not my ability to understand.

If popularity mattered Monty would have been banned 8 years ago. He's gotten more "2nd chances", "last chances" and "benefits of the doubt" than any other 12 people on this board combined.



You can't put Montegue on ignore. Even when you personally ignore him you still see every single post he makes because the people who aren't tired of slamming their heads against the wall quote him constantly.

Montegue was toxic, contributed nothing worthwhile in the political forums, and was getting worse every day. Good riddance.

Except, they split your responses from the thread, too. The moderators didn't feel I was out of line as much they felt compelled to deal with your report. Your action speaks volumes, and as it's part of a larger pattern of behavior, it is something the community should address (and has).

_________________

BIG RED DISCLAIMER: this is merely my personal take on things. It may or may not be entirely accurate.

Also, long post is long. Sorry.

I've been contemplating exactly what I ought to say about this. I don't generally care for discussing posters in a context where they can't respond, but that's somewhat unavoidable in this case. It's understandable that there are questions/comments/concerns about this, and at least some measure of explanation is in order.

My first observation is that the only conspiracy against Monte was ... well ... Monte. Was he singled out? I think the most accurate answer is that he singled himself out through years of chronic bad behavior. I think someone said that it was a "lifetime achievement award". That's probably a good way to put it. This wasn't just about the behavior itself, but how he dealt with it and justified it. Ultimately, he refused to knowledge any personal responsibility for his actions and routinely failed to accept that how he acted directly beared on how others (including the moderation staff) treated him.

What this is not (and never has been) about is Monte's political views. I can't speak for Mookhow, so these are just my own (possibly incorrect) observations, but in all the time that I've known him through the Glade, IRC, and WoW, and I've developed the impression that he is distinctly apolitical. I'm sure he must possess a political opinion of some sort, at least here and there, but generally speaking, it seems to be an area that he is largely uninterested or at least dispassionate about. I'm not saying this because I'm "white knighting" for Mookhow or anyone else, but simply because it's true: the idea that Mookhow would ban Montegue (or anyone else, for that matter) due to their political views is pretty well ridiculous to anyone who's more than just casually acquainted with him.

Mind you, I'm not chastising anyone for raising the question here -- that's basically what this thread is for. I just wanted to address the question unequivocally. You really, really, don't need to worry that there's some kind of political gestapo that's going to start banning people because of politics. Quite the contrary as far as I'm concerned. My "guiding principle", if you will, is to see more quality, honest discussion and debate here, and that simply can't happen without a diversity of opinions. And, frankly, none of Montegue's political opinions, whether separately or taken as whole, were in and of themselves anything unique within the Glade. This also speaks back to the notion that he was treated differently because of his politics.

As to him being banned without "breaking any rules", I think I should point out that contrary to popular belief, Hellfire does have rules, even now. The intention, as expressed, was to take a basically "hands-off" approach, but nowhere was it said that Hellfire would be completely unmoderated.



Whether or not the intentional vaguery of the current rule set for Hellfire is a good thing is an issue that I gather will be re-examined soon. But for now, that's what we've got. It's admittedly a judgement call as to when behavior crosses over the line from acting like an *** to being an ***, but there you have it. Really, I don't think it was even just a matter of "disrupting the whole forum". The bigger issue is that he was disrupting the whole forum with no intention of ever stopping. This is where you cross the line from merely having a bout of bad behavior to being a chronic disruptive force. This is certainly far from the first time we (the collective we) have had to deal with this.

There's a long history here, and while it may rankle some, the reality of human affairs is that history matters. This isn't a popularity contest; however, while the moderation staff strives to be as objective as possible, no moderation decision can come completely out of a vacuum. A poster with a long history of generally responsible behavior and constructive contributions is likely to be cut at least a little bit of slack for their infractions than someone with a long history of disruptive behavior. That isn't favoritism. Favoritism entails moderating (or not moderating) individuals for reasons beyond their behavior. I merely speak to judging a poster's behavior on something like a sliding window, and doling out punishments when needed with some perspective on the poster's general character and demeanor. It's a question of necessity. Someone with a generally responsible history can probably be "reformed" without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. When it's at all possible, I think a lighter hand should be preferred to a heavier one.

That's not to say that history is everything, either. IMHO, people can and should be given second (and beyond) chances, especially if there's any indication that they either acknowledge the problem or are at least making a sincere effort to change their behavior. But there are and should be limits to the patience bestowed on any one member. There is a balance that must be struck between the worthy principle of forbearance and the needs of the community. When it comes down to that, the old adage is basically true: you reap what you sow.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Stathol,

I agree with your intent. But I'll note that Dash took away the more detailed ruleset and left hellfire unmoderated simply because he didn't agree with his moderation staff banning montegue or really moderating this place at all. (Mookhow - I'll add the original ban of monte was set to 30 days as a temporary thing while we discussed how long it should be. Then Dash had a hissy-fit that Monty was getting picked on and really didn't let it get any further.) If he's changed his mind now, that's one thing, but since you now have access to the moderator forums, you can go back through our many posts where Dash is defending Monte and his style of posting as not that bad, and he disagreed with the way we dealt with him. Since Dash wrote the "Don't be an ***," rule, one must assume Monte did not qualify under it, since Monte's posting style has been pretty much the same for 8 years. He didn't suddenly escalate now.

That said, I banned him once myself for repeated and direct violation of specific glade rules -- rules which I essentially wrote and therefore agreed with. I'm not going to say it wasn't appropriate, except to echo DFK!-- 'Why now?' Let him come back when he's breaking rules, then kick him out when the rules are gone? The inconsistency is bizarre.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Mainly because its up to Mookhow now. In that way, it isn't inconsistent. Dash didn't have no rules; he had one rule that was incredibly vague so he didn't have to deal with anything unless he felt like it.

Mook has a different level of tolerance, and in any case, there's still been an overall board rule of "keep it in Hellfire". Accusing the entire moderation staff of conspiring against you when the top guy isn't even interested in politics.. isn't keeping it in Hellfire.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."