arguments... why egf is doing them wrong

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Even I agree that permabanning Fireball in that situation was uncalled for, and I think I've said as much publicly on the forums.

That's an awfully slippery slope if you're using what sections of the site people are involved in to determine relative poster value. I think you shouldn't let things like that make it so one poster is worth more than another. Seniority is one thing and even past history is understandable but I feel like the criteria is just wrong. It's arbitrary and rather discriminatory when you get down to it. Just because someone likes to post essays about symbolism in Evangelion shouldn't mean they get lighter treatment than someone who just likes to visit off-topic.

However, back on this topic, this is an Evangelion forum. It stands to reason that people who contribute to what the site is actually about may be seen as more valuable in the eyes of the staff. Based on the fact that this is an Evangelion forum, it doesn't seem to be arbitrary-- and with regard to whether or not it is discriminatory, discriminating against posters based on how much they contribute to what the site is based around seems to be quite reasonable.

[pwhodges]

That's an awfully slippery slope if you're using what sections of the site people are involved in to determine relative poster value

Some of the earlier staff of the forum felt it was not a good idea to have an off-topic area at all, as I understand. Can you then be surprised if they take into account, to some extent, the contributions of those who actively contribute to the subject of the forum?

I think that was the final tipping point for me when I decided we need to have a summit and discuss this

Regardless of the reason that it happened, the person concerned took responsibility for it, stepped down from the staff, banned himself and left the forum. There's not a lot more that discussion of that isolated incident can do, other than get people worked up.

because things have been getting out of hand for a while.

From about six months after I joined this forum, the moderation has, in my view, been generally improving.

[Ornette]

I understand this. The problem is consistency. To some extent, there's even been victim-blaming on the part of the staff. Recall Xard's manifesto? I disagreed with just about everything in it, and find his arguments and conclusion abhorrent. I did not attack him as a person for merely having wrong opinion; and have been meaning to write a point-by-point rebuttal and counterargument, as it should be handled. He did nothing wrong. His beliefs may have been wrong, but not his voicing them in a thoughtful manner. To say he did wrong is bordering on thought crime. Yet, he was the one punished when others lashed out. I'm pansexual as fuck, but i can not let that get in the way of the discussion at hand.

Xard wasn't repremanded for this views at all, his long megapost is viewed mostly as pretty great, the problem was how he carried himself, as a moderator of the forum, after people disagreed with him. And that was really, really, piss-poor. Everyone involved was dealt with, not just Xard, and each was assessed based on previous history and involvement in that thread. Since Xard was the one getting dogpiled on, it's not surprising that he was pretty involved in the downward spiral. This isn't the first time this has been re-explained to you or other people.

Like it's been brought up before, blind consistency based on a set of vague rules may be consistent, and you'll get what you get because rules are rules, but is it really "fair"? You want consistent? Take a look at our previous Rebuild spoiler policy. That was consistent across the board, to everyone new and old. You make a spoiler or what could be a spoiler, and you're banned. Doesn't matter how big the spoiler could have been or if it really spoiled anything "important".

Now take that and look at all the rules (which have been greatly simplified and trimmed), and take that blind consistency and apply it to all the rules. Everytime someone is judged to have broken one of those rules, you get banned, or maybe some progression of offences. No more borderline cases, no more room for any interpretation or context, just swinging the hammer. Do you really want something like that?

[Trajan]

Some of the earlier staff of the forum felt it was not a good idea to have an off-topic area at all, as I understand. Can you then be surprised if they take into account, to some extent, the contributions of those who actively contribute to the subject of the forum?

Oh man, this again. I thought we'd finally put that to bed. This is a well known fact among longer tenured members that the earlier staff didn't like off-topic but I feel most everyone here agrees that nuking off-topic would kill off upwards of half the user base. This may be an Evangelion forum, but prioritizing users who post more about Eva (when almost everything about it has been talked about to death) seems rather juvenile. It's understandable but it's not exactly a good thing.

Regardless of the reason that it happened, the person concerned took responsibility for it, stepped down from the staff, banned himself and left the forum. There's not a lot more that discussion of that isolated incident can do, other than get people worked up.

And it should have never gotten there in the first place. I may have questioned Ursus' moderating style but even so, the forums should have never gotten to such a polarized state that a clusterfuck like this had to happen. The underlying problems are still here and similar incidents are likely going to happen in the future. Ursus was not the instigator, he was a casualty, a byproduct of how the forum keeps ganging up on each other. The problem is not solved and frankly, I want people to get worked up. Not frothing at the mouth angry, but upset enough that we discuss this. Real change only happens when a large amount of people are unhappy with the way things are.

From about six months after I joined this forum, the moderation has, in my view, been generally improving.

It has been inconsistent at best. There have been improvements in many areas, but regressions in others. The staff usually avoids making the same old mistakes but they seem to make new ones periodically. They're better than the last big incident we had (the Rebuild spoiler debacle) in large part due to new infusions to the staff but I feel like we've got a long way to go. And as I've said before, moderation can get better but the user base needs to improve as well.

[TehDonutKing]

Thank you, Ornette; it seems my memory regarding the event was somewhat muddled.

Now take that and look at all the rules (which have been greatly simplified and trimmed), and take that blind consistency and apply it to all the rules. Everytime someone is judged to have broken one of those rules, you get banned, or maybe some progression of offences. No more borderline cases, no more room for any interpretation or context, just swinging the hammer. Do you really want something like that?

No. I'd rather it be somewhere between that and what we have now, honestly. The problem is less consistency in the letter of the law, but consistency in how different members of the forum are treated and disciplined. It's not an uncommon sentiment that you've been treating more harshly those that you simply dislike or disagree with. I suppose impartiality is a better word than consistency.

[Bagheera]

It's not an uncommon sentiment that you've been treating more harshly those that you simply dislike or disagree with. I suppose impartiality is a better word than consistency.

That's not an uncommon sentiment, but that doesn't make it true. The ban notices thread suggests it isn't.

[NemZ]

This may be an Evangelion forum, but prioritizing users who post more about Eva (when almost everything about it has been talked about to death) seems rather juvenile. It's understandable but it's not exactly a good thing.

I actually suspect the forums were originally only in existence as a way of working out what to put into the wiki. The forums only really took on a life of their own and developed into a community over time, and while the off-topic is in some ways the glue that holds the community together the rest of the forum is still the purpose for any of this being here in the first place.

So think about it... If someone doesn't support the primary purpose and their contributions to the community-building side are actually causing us trouble then what possible reason do we have for wanting this poster around? Humor only goes so far.

It has been inconsistent at best. There have been improvements in many areas, but regressions in others.

Such as?

[Ornette]

No. I'd rather it be somewhere between that and what we have now, honestly. The problem is less consistency in the letter of the law, but consistency in how different members of the forum are treated and disciplined. It's not an uncommon sentiment that you've been treating more harshly those that you simply dislike or disagree with. I suppose impartiality is a better word than consistency.

See, this is where your mileage may vary. Keeping in mind that we're taking a lot of things into account when major moderation decisions are made, how does one stay impartial for everything? We do it by trying to have enough staff on-hand to allow multiple, often with dissenting, opinions. Some people are going to think different things for different people, but there's plenty of times when things are pretty unanimous. From someone else's point of view that may "look" impartial, and if it's someone you know and talk to all the time then of course it would seem like we aren't being fair since you know a particular person way better than the staff does, which most of the time only have the interactions on the forum to go on. But then the question is, are *you* being impartial?

There's no doubt that people can't be entirely impartial, and there's also no doubt that some decisions are made with less impartiality than others. It's because some moderation actions are applied because the moderator in question makes a judgment call that time is of the essence. These are almost always minor things in comparison, locking, splitting, in-thread warnings, and NOT something like banning. Sometimes this impartiality becomes such a problem that staff with completely different views discuss what should be done while a thread goes off the deep end, with sometimes the action being taken too late. Sometimes a lock really should have happened pages ago but a judgement call was made to see if the thread settles down or steers back on course. How can you expect a judgement like that to be completely impartial? It's made with whatever contextual information is available with time being a major factor. Sometimes it was the right thing, sometimes it wasn't.

[pwhodges]

nuking off-topic would kill off upwards of half the user base.

Sure - and I'd argue that an off-topic area is important. I have also argued for the removal of limits on political discussion, preferring (where it's down to me) to police the civility of a discussion rather than the content - though even on that there are limits.

prioritizing users who post more about Eva (when almost everything about it has been talked about to death) seems rather juvenile.

I think that "prioritising" suggests a degree of partiality that to the best of my knowledge doesn't happen.

the forums should have never gotten to such a polarized state that a clusterfuck like this had to happen.

It's not forums that get polarised, it's the people. It may be that an even firmer insistence on civility would be a good thing, though.

The staff usually avoids making the same old mistakes but they seem to make new ones periodically.

That's human nature, and I don't know how to get round it. More discussion backstage, for instance, means longer delays in reaching a decision, and this can be, or be perceived to be, unfair as well.

as I've said before, moderation can get better but the user base needs to improve as well.

We agree on this; one question is how much moderation can improve a user base other than by pruning it. My experience is that pruning (possibly very limited) is often necessary, but can quickly make problems less likely to recur in the remaining user base.

[TehDonutKing]

See, this is where your mileage may vary. Keeping in mind that we're taking a lot of things into account when major moderation decisions are made, how does one stay impartial for everything? We do it by trying to have enough staff on-hand to allow multiple, often with dissenting, opinions. Some people are going to think different things for different people, but there's plenty of times when things are pretty unanimous. From someone else's point of view that may "look" impartial, and if it's someone you know and talk to all the time then of course it would seem like we aren't being fair since you know a particular person way better than the staff does, which most of the time only have the interactions on the forum to go on. But then the question is, are *you* being impartial?

There's no doubt that people can't be entirely impartial, and there's also no doubt that some decisions are made with less impartiality than others. It's because some moderation actions are applied because the moderator in question makes a judgment call that time is of the essence. These are almost always minor things in comparison, locking, splitting, in-thread warnings, and NOT something like banning. Sometimes this impartiality becomes such a problem that staff with completely different views discuss what should be done while a thread goes off the deep end, with sometimes the action being taken too late. Sometimes a lock really should have happened pages ago but a judgement call was made to see if the thread settles down or steers back on course. How can you expect a judgement like that to be completely impartial? It's made with whatever contextual information is available with time being a major factor. Sometimes it was the right thing, sometimes it wasn't.

I can't argue with this, to be honest.

[TheFriskyIan]

preferring (where it's down to me) to police the civility of a discussion rather than the content - though even on that there are limits.

Policing it will only lead to people typing up sarcastic remarks and not take it seriously, playing ignorant because people will think posting anything else will get them smacked with the gavel.

It's not forums that get polarised, it's the people. It may be that an even firmer insistence on civility would be a good thing, though.

Maybe it's because I only come here, check who's talking about what, and derp out, but the only polarization I ever see going on are in those political threads. Can anyone here actually say that those discussions are somehow bringing quality posts into this forum and not feel as though they just told a lie a little? If almost every thread devolves into shit flinging how can anybody say it's worth keeping?

I was a member of a another forum on a video game developers site for eight years, and back in the end of 2012 they finally decided to remove their ban on political/religious discussion, and the content of that forum was then dragged through the mud and the community is now split, argumentative, and dead. Internet forums are no more than a social gathering to discuss things, and when you go out to a party in reality what's the two subjects you just don't bring up in conversations?

[Chuckman]

My honest opinion is that your insistence on procedure and a detailed 42 point rule document stifles you. It's a private forum, tell people to go screw if they make asses out of themselves. You make it sound like banning someone requires access codes and an elaborate procedure with two safes.

Also I'm fine with banning political discussions since there's no point to them anyway. I'd rather have the OT forum even if I don't mind typing up the occasional 10,000 word screed myself.

[NemZ]

My honest opinion is that your insistence on procedure and a detailed 42 point rule document stifles you.

Well, yes, it does... and that's kind of the point. Without such controls we'd have more such incidents as we had recently. We need such structures because behind the curtain the fact is we often don't all agree just what sort of punishment a poster deserves, if any.

There are only 10 rules though (plus the zeroth rule): the bullets are explanations of how said rules can apply, not the strict limit of such, and we reserve the right to add, remove or change them whenever we feel like it.

We aren't considering getting rid of OT. I'd very much like to have more mature discussions again, but making that happen without the meltdowns is proving difficult. I do have an idea, but it isn't feasible to try at present. Perhaps next year, if others are amenable to it.

[THE Hal E. Burton 9000]

I am not here to drudge up the past or get caught up in other minutia, this is just a straightforward, honest, official observation from a former forum regular. I am not going to directly reply in the open to however people react to this post nor am I going to spend any length of time here. (Fair Warning: This post will not be made to go into the internet ether. Trust me.)

The people still left in charge of this forum after all these years really do not understand how their ad nauseam favoritism refrain under the guise of "but they make (alleged) contributions" and clearly calculated, personal biases carried out under a perverted point of view regarding "goodly manners" and "fairness" have gone a very long way to run off otherwise solid, true members of this community. "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" would be the perfect phrase to describe the last five-ish years of EGF.

There was a time I thought all such tomfoolery was all based on narcissism and some perpetual, unconscious, unresolved adolescent-level need for vengeance for a prior disenchantment of a time when the people in charge of this forum were the outsiders of a clique/group envious of the clique/insiders that to which they finally have become themselves and never want to give up this power they have lusted after for so long. Those things are certainly in play but are only mild quirks that smarter people could learn to stifle. However, I now sincerely believe, with what little respect I can muster without choking back tears of laughter and disappointment, that like the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, the so-called management really has no idea what they are doing and are constantly trying to cover their collective competency deficit up to no avail. To paraphrase in more familiar words, the admins/mods have no bloody clue and they cannot stop fanwanking everyone and everything they come into contact with to death. As such, I have no desire or intention to slowly tear through all the bone-headed decisions that have been made over the years, if only because I do not believe anything I or anyone else posts or demonstrates will make anything or anyone here change. There are, however, a few recent moments that stunningly demonstrate how dumb and insular the management are that I would be re-missed to not mention.

The depressed in charge here have gone so far as to chase off once "favored" (mostly) reasonable people like Reichu and Ursus. Even though I usually never agreed with her and by all accounts she personally loathed me, Reichu was and will forever be the unsung hero and original backbone of this forum and she was essentially browbeaten away from here in some twisted, big-time "cool kids" fit by the management. The management can attempt to make use of every PR / spin tactic that Edward Bernays ever conceived of, but it is clear in the tone that both Reichu and Ursus posted towards the end that everything that went down was not 100% their respective decision. The fact that a certain wiki of ill repute has had a page for this forum for the last two years tells you what kind of reputation this place has earned, and rightfully so I'm afraid to admit.

At one point circa 2011-2012, I wanted this place to receive a DDoS from which it would never come back. At this point though, October 21, 2015, I am just sad, or "son I am disappoint" as we used to say around here. Remember that kind of humor? It would be wonderful to go have this forum return to its hey-day as “Eva Monkey Forum” circa 2008ish-mid 2010, but the people who made that magical, near-mythical time possible have been all but erased from existence and those still left are but ghoulish apparitions. I sincerely wish this place would make a roaring comeback, but it is 100% clear that the thrill is gone forever. I also hope this place serves as a good lesson to anyone who knows about it for how to not build and manage a community, internet-based or otherwise.

Oh, and on a happier fourth-dimensional note, Happy Back to the Future Day to those here who still have something close to joy in their heart.

[pwhodges]

I'm as much of a sucker for nostalgia as anyone, but hey - time, change, and things. Talk of a golden age is usually more about the circumstances that surrounded it; a comparatively current series, things happening, questions not yet answered (some still not, perhaps because the answers don't exist!), people who were younger then. New people bring new ideas and perspectives, so the feeling of a social group like this tends to shift around with time, not because things are going wrong, but because they're going right - people still come here.

Any change in a forum leads to complaints. But changes also happen for reasons, many of which are good, and are seen as positive by those who are not complaining. But overall, I'd say this forum is going well.

[Mr. Tines]

However, I now sincerely believe, with what little respect I can muster without choking back tears of laughter and disappointment, that like the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, the so-called management really has no idea what they are doing and are constantly trying to cover their collective competency deficit up to no avail.

A lot of the fumbling you see comes from the fact that the staff are not a hive-mind; we have disagreements amongst ourselves, reaching a consensus can take time and sometimes the on-the-spot decisions made are not the ones that an eventual consensus would have made. Meanwhile, the actual active roster changes over time both as the world turns each day, and over longer periods as real life and burnout happen -- the number of lapsed staff members well exceeds the number of active ones.

[A.T. Fish]

The depressed in charge here have gone so far as to chase off once "favored" (mostly) reasonable people like Reichu and Ursus.

If anything these examples are contrary to your argument, as these members were demoted, and subsequently left the forum, due to poor decisions made while they were still administrators. And that's despite their good relationship with the other admins, so favoritism was not a factor.

[Shinoyami65]

The depressed in charge here have gone so far as to chase off once "favored" (mostly) reasonable people like Reichu and Ursus. Even though I usually never agreed with her and by all accounts she personally loathed me, Reichu was and will forever be the unsung hero and original backbone of this forum and she was essentially browbeaten away from here in some twisted, big-time "cool kids" fit by the management. The management can attempt to make use of every PR / spin tactic that Edward Bernays ever conceived of, but it is clear in the tone that both Reichu and Ursus posted towards the end that everything that went down was not 100% their respective decision. The fact that a certain wiki of ill repute has had a page for this forum for the last two years tells you what kind of reputation this place has earned, and rightfully so I'm afraid to admit.

Reichu is still a participating member of the forums, albeit no longer an admin (by her own choice, as far as I'm aware).

As for the 'wiki of ill repute', as I recall that page was created by a volatile member of the community who clashed repeatedly with other members of the forum and who eventually turned out to have fabricated their personal details to create a sympathetic background on the forums, so it seems more like a reflection of that individual's unfortunate dealings with the forums rather than an accurate representation of the community.

[Reichu]

The depressed in charge here have gone so far as to chase off once "favored" (mostly) reasonable people like Reichu and Ursus. Even though I usually never agreed with her and by all accounts she personally loathed me, Reichu was and will forever be the unsung hero and original backbone of this forum

I'm flattered. :3 For what it's worth, I have no concrete negative impression of you that I can recall.

------

The reasons why I'm no longer an admin nor involved with the site in any way are complicated. The situation is not something I'm terribly happy about. I helped create this place, after all. I used to regard it as a safe haven -- the one place on the Internet I knew I could feel safe and wanted, so matter how shitty the rest was. This was not to be, of course, as EGF gradually mutated beyond recognition, into an environment that I consider hostile and undesirable. The people largely responsible for sustaining this atmosphere are not going anywhere fast, as well. Add onto that the fact that most of my old posse are either gone or have become intolerable.

There really was no choice here. Not between forum politics and my own need for self-preservation. Only so many times you can get depressed and self-destructive over the sorry state of an Internet forum before you realize you need to move on and leave it for dead.

(Incidentally: since my demotion, I have attempted to offer my services again. It doesn't seem I could become an admin again even if I wanted to.)

[Dream]

This was not to be, of course, as EGF gradually mutated beyond recognition, into an environment that I consider hostile and undesirable. The people largely responsible for sustaining this atmosphere are not going anywhere fast, as well. Add onto that the fact that most of my old posse are either gone or have become intolerable.

Would it be possible to describe some particular or general examples of this mutation and it's undesirable aspects? PM is fine if you'd rather not write it in public, of course.

Overall i'm sorry to see you feeling so dejected and disenchanted about the forum, specially one which you contributed/built so much into. But it is indeed true that at some point it just isn't worth it to stress so much about a forum that doesn't bring you that much value or joy anymore and -if not necessarily leave- at least distance yourself significantly from it. I'm actually a bit surprised at how much of your whole post i can relate to.