Aplology accepted, I have been, and am responding in a row as I read this thread for the first time so I'm likely going to contradict myself a few times after reading new info (thread is just too long to read it all before commenting and hope to remember what I planned to comment on.) the only part of this post by you that I really don't and never will agree with is:



Locking a thread that question's a site's moderation methodology is always wrong in my eyes, it is in fact the worst kinf of iron-fist moderation. It's much like the government killing or jailing protestors to 'lock' their mouths when they voice their opinions.

At this point, since all of this has already been resolved, it probably would be best to stop. >.>

You really don't need to read and reply to all the posts without reading the whole thread…!

Here's the fundamental difference where you and I disagree. It is okay. In a larger sense, to say it isn't is like saying calling the government's authority into question isn't okay, which once again, is okay.

Fizban, don't take this the wrong way but your comments seem very trollish and directed to attack Samson, I may be wrong, but please tone it down a bit.

Finished reading, and final post, in response to Kiasyn, not the thread itself really at all. I'm honestly not intending to attack Samson. I just have found that he has a few personal flaws which I think cause him to moderate in ways that are generally disagreed with by the general populace. I'm not claiming he's the only person with flaws, or even these specific flaws.

I just find that he specifically does the following:

1. When someone disagrees with him he usually takes it as a personal attack on him and makes posts to the effect that they hate him. I don't hate him. I don't hate anyone on these forums. I do on the other hand disagree with almost everyone on these forums at times.

2. A few times I have seen him apologize after doing something or change his mind later which says to me that he most likely acts without thinking instead of taking time to cool off and make a decision when he's not angry. I am guilty of this myself at times. The difference is I am not a moderator on any site other than tbamud.com which is more of a mud resource than a mud discussion site. People post requests, I help them, there is very little general discussion which could lead to me disagreeing with people there.

3. He seems to have the opinion that people in authority roles should not be allowed to be questioned, something that several people here including myself disagree with.

that was kind of the opposite of what i asked but okay.

That's why I've called into question having the General Chatter board if conversation not pertaining directly to MUD is discouraged. I'm not trying to be difficult here, truly, however I feel like there is a bit of a mixed message here. If I understand the "purpose" of the site, its for MUDs, MUD related discussion, MUD listing, and primarily as a code repository for MUDs. I do believe that much is obvious. What I interpret your post to basically be saying is that the Administrators, you, or both want to see the discussion of topics and debate here relative to the purpose of the website, and that much of the thread locking was justified based on the nature of it being unrelated or even detracting from the purpose of the site. Based on some of the things said by others and yourself, that seems to me to be a bit of a clear message: discuss MUD related stuff. However, it seems to me that message is contradicted by the very existance of the General Chatter board, the numerous non-MUD related discussions that have occured there, and the description of "just feel like shooting the breeze?" or however its worded.

This is where I've been seeking some form of clarification, whether it be in the rules or in the description of the General Chatter board. Is that supposed to be General Chatter as an off-topic, non MUD related part of the site as I think we've all taken it to be, or is it a General Chatter about MUD/game related things that don't necessarily pertain to any specific thing other than the overall genre?

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely seeking understanding on these issues, and the reason I posted this here in a reply instead of a private message is I feel this is an important clarification for everyone. If we better understand what we are or aren't supposed to be discussing or doing, then I think that makes things easier for everyone. I understand you aren't interested in discussing policy, I get that and that's not what I'm asking for, but I think some clarification on this would better serve everyone here, members and Admins alike.




Hah! I'll take that as a compliment I suppose :p

In the vein of that, I would like to say I personally think that with the degree of resolution the thread has seen over the last week, many of your concerns regarding Samson might would have been better left to private messages, rather than risk the conflagaration of this whole issue again.

The two scenarios don't equate, really. Askng or expecting questions about moderation authority to be handled in private is the equivalent of torturing and/or executing political prisoners? Isn't that just a little over the top?



That seems to be a common misconception. I'm not sure why everyone assumes that when I post in anger or in a hostile manner to deliberate provocation that I must be doing so because they disagreed with me and that I think they hate me. Though there are certain people who have gone out of their way to present the illusion that they do, so would it be at all surprising to take it literally? Text does not convey when someone is puffing themselves up for effect.



Guilty as charged. It happens. Likely a lot more than it should, but I am human despite rumors that I'm an undead iguanadon emperor….



I'm not sure my having been a moderator is relevant to the issue. Moderators are human too, yes? They're allowed to have flaws, bad days, a rash of complaints, or whatever else, right?



No. If I haven't made this clear, then allow me to do so now. I don't think it's appropriate to question forum moderation in a public manner. That's why I've consistently held to taking such issues private. If I wanted it squelched entirely then I'd not have encouraged folks to do that. Some people have not liked the outcome of going that route, but we don't always get what we want. This isn't a government institution. It's not the police writing tickets. Nobody is being charged with a crime. Nobody's liberty is in danger. I've only ever witnessed public questioning of moderation decisions lead in one direction - chaos and flamewars. The larger the site, the more true this becomes, so the more likely it is someone gets banned to keep the peace.

Anyway, most of this is already resolved in one way or another. I figured though that it needed to be clarified.

I thought all of it had been resolved a few days or 60 posts back, seems rather pointless to go back over it all again when you, I and many others had settled many old wounds and had moved on, and while I'm posting might i add that its good to see you sounding somewhat chipper and upbeat about everything. I have been really busy, i hope to get some time tomorrow to post about some thoughts i have had about moving forward, rather than jump in with the 2 minutes i have spare.

The response was more or less for Fizban's benefit, since he joined late and his points deserved some kind of response.

Yeah i guess it is hard to sift thought 15 pages of this thread to see all the ground covered, even just reading HK's summery is an epic exercise.

Of course not every single thread must be about MUDs. I was primarily referring to the half dozen or so threads about random topics that, after 3-4 pages, wind up being threads about policy or moderation. That includes forked threads and user-started threads started after / because another thread turned bad.

If you want to talk about the election or some other hot topic, by all means do so. If it digresses too far from a discussion about politics, especially if that digression leads to what looks like slander, it may be moderated.

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to respond :)

You bet!