INDIELEAKS REPORT(I'm not sure how worth showing any of this crap is, aside from the one hour bans stuff, but might as well post it all. Also, I just quoted quotes with nested quotes to make it easier to follow specific replies (and so I wouldn't have to work as hard 
))IMPORTANT: This is a lot of shit (what follows is the definition of tldr), but there was even more shit. I left the other shit out because it was even more repetitive or stupid than the shit that follows.
First, we have an argument between Miroslav and Dragonmaw started. They were mostly arguing about whether or not Dragonmaw should be one of the global mods:Yes, one instance of forum derailing is enough to point it out and question his abilities, because aside of that he is also trying hard to justify forum anger. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person who thinks the same. The issue with IRC was noted before and he really tried hard to justify using word "faggot". I mean seriously?
His argument with Adam was downright awful and Adam was pretty rational. Go back and read it. Yes, go back and read it carefully.
I can ignore all this shit, seriously. I was relaxed at the start and wanted to make a small contribution, I wanted to point that out, I didn't have to, it was voluntary, but then got angered because I was called all sorts of names for no reason. You helped it, I can tell you. Crowe too.
And by telling me that I have to know him in order to tell these things, you're just ignoring the context of discussion.
The context is that you are telling people I am unfit to be a moderator because I am "justifying the use of the word faggot" (oversimplification to the point of ridiculousness) and that I, at one point, had an argument with Adam where we were both cocks to each other.
I can't tell whether you are doing this on purpose to try and make me out to be an awful person, or if you genuinely believe this horse shit.
This is the important debate, if any of these can be considered "important." They're arguing about whether or not the forums should implement smaller bans in order to stop flame wars and whatnot.One hour bans sound sexy to me!
Regarding bvanevery, I think he wasn't banned - he left the forum because of 'public ridicule' and I actually felt bad because of that. I'm not really fond of opening "should he be banned?" threads as they over exaggerate issues and are most often not adequate punishment for people's mistakes.
This would be a great reason for us to have clearer rules, require warnings before bans and having temp-bans as a non-destructive option.
i would prefer nobody is ever banned but spambots, sock puppets, and people who posted illegal material. if we are going to keep the policy of banning people just because they are offensive to some others then more consistency than the previous 'this guy seems too aggressive/unfriendly for this place' would be preferable, but my previous statement (in another thread) about how such "clear" rules are impossible to enforce fairly still holds: i don't think it *is* possible to have clear rules and to enforce them objectively when it comes to different perceptions and intents regarding offensiveness.
unless the rules are extremely objective: e.g. 'no using these specified words'. but stuff like 'no excessive disrespect' or 'no personal attacks' are not clear rules, and impossible to enforce fairly.
Are you against temporary, very brief bans as well? I think giving someone an hour to calm down and think is okay.
Because I totally agree that any ban above, and this is pushing it, a day is far too long.
i think that's a lesser evil, but not a big deal unless their posts are deleted, because at least it doesn't interfere with with what they said, it only interferes with how fast they can respond to others. i don't really see the point of it, but i don't think it'd be as destructive to the community as banning people forever for being too insulting or aggressive.
but i've never really seen it in practice, so i have no idea how well it's work. it's just theoretical unless tried. does anyone know of any major forums that have this temporary (1-day or less) banning practice in place? and how well it works for those forums? empiricism is key.
but basically my guess is that it wouldn't do any good whatsoever, but it wouldn't do much harm either.
As a former member of forums that used that kind of moderation in the past, it works.
*Can* work. It's also just as likely (or, depending on the community, more likely) that it will just rile members up.
I feel that banning anyone who is not patently a spambot or breaking the law is a shame. Perceptions of what behavior is deemed appropriate can be used to determine if someone is bannable -- it is how we decided to eliminate Super Joe -- but in that case it's surely necessary to involve the community -- again, as we did in the case of Super Joe -- rather than just the moderators. And even in that case, I think a lot of people would have preferred he be allowed to stick around...
It was called "Lazy Fuck" when I went to it, it was a 20-something general interest forum.
I'm not sure I haven't been there in about 4 years. When people would come to just cause trouble, or for the sake of offensive, in their first post, they would be banned, if a frequent member, they would be temp banned. This didn't, in any way, impact the discussion or create a situation where users felt they had to walk on eggshells.
Honestly, I don't want any one banned, I think mods need the power to ban so that they can warn users with authority. The current system is broken because Moderators are impotent or punished when trying to deal with nefarious elements.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Super Joe was a bad element, he turned every thread he posted in, into a thread about him. The process in which he was banned martyred him, and people still like him because non sequitur humour can be funny, that or he was the counter to some user's perceived injustices in indie games.
After this it ventures into questionably newsworthy territory again, with the argument segueing into a debate on whether or not Super Joe was a troll and whether or not PIGScene is self-pitying.will do a search for it -- anyone else have any other forum examples? a larger sample size improves confidence
regarding super joe, the reason i like him isn't because of non sequitur humor, it's cause he was and still is an important member of the community: he did voice acting for many of podunkian's games and level design for a lot of them too, he wrote for pigscene (reviewing indie games), made a lot of insightful comments about indie games there and on these forums and continues to do so through his twitter and irc even though he can no longer post here.
yeah, but my entire point in this thread is that no matter how much nonsense there is it's not worth losing someone's insight over
While you're point is respectable enough, my entire point is respect is a two-way street. People who act like a fool and lose privileges have themselves to blame, particularly when rules are posted and they are warned. Don't get me wrong I'm one to forgive, but people need to realize what they stand to lose.
I guess personally I hate trying to read through 3 pages of shit-posting to get to something interesting. I think I brought this up last year.
also, in what way is pigscene self-pity at all? i know podunk and super joe and they never seemed to be the type of people who feel bad for themselves; if anything they're the opposite extreme. the site is basically entirely making fun of art games; what kind of self-pity do you see in it?
The site always struck me was "I wish I was one of the cool kids!" People acting out to get attention.
but podunkian and super joe are very cool, their games very popular (the underside was the second-most anticipated indie game (after fez) in a poll, and merry gear solid was a hugely popular game. dungeon was also a very popular game, even covered by wired) so i don't see that at all. that seems petty to say something like that about such established indie game devs. certainly at least i'd say that their games are more popular than most of the games they reviewed.
I have no ill will against either of those fine fellows, I was talking about their website. But, if it's true that they are more popular then the games they mocked, doesn't that seem MORE asshole-ish?
i agree that people should take responsibility for their actions, i just think the community lost far more than super joe lost when we banned him
Though, to be fair, all he lost was an audience.
EDIT, off topic: I'm going to try and keep up with your resolution as well, though I don't think I'm going to dig back 3 years!
PIGScene was snarky
Yes.
"Funny 'cuz it's true" at best
No. It was primarily satirical. Satire goes, or should go, deeper than "Funny 'cuz it's true". FCIT is more along the lines of "Hey, so how about that thing where your dog shits in your slippers? Yeah? Yeah, I know, right?"
and self pity the rest of the time.
Again, no. Perhaps there was some level of self-pity (I guess there always is, sort of, to a degree), but mostly it was not giving a shit about giving a shit.
Super Joe was funny, didn't take himself too seriously, definitely had a lot of interesting insights (even if they were only implied in what he said at times), and, as Paul said, he was productive. He actually used his (apparently considerable) reserves of energy to make things. He was overly trolly a lot of the time, but I still think he was more of a G than most of the people he was trolling. Also, most of their responses to him were whiny, childish and basically dull. He was like Dark Fish, maybe. Anyway, remember: your prospective sexual partner totally digs a sense of humour.
Also, Paul's right. They were definitely the cool kids. Not the
only cool kids, maybe, but cooler'n most nonetheless.
Errbody just needs to be more chill, more of the time.
their mocking had nothing to do with how popular or unpopular a game was: they mocked both popular art games and unknown ones. and as far as i know most of the people who were mocked found it funny and recognized it as humor, so i don't see it as "asshole-ish" at all. i mean, it's like weird al yankovic: most of the musicians he parodies appreciate it, there was only that one guy (amish paradise) who resented it.
(they also don't actually believe art games are bad, as an aside. dungeon is basically an experimental game popular because of its "trick" rather than the gameplay too. also braid is one of podunkian's favorite games, even though one of his pigscene song lyrics goes "nobody wants to play another indie game like braid")
the only thing that i felt may have gone over the line is when they reviewed spelunky before it was released (someone apparently leaked the game to them from a secret forum here, podunk still won't tell me who it was; it was the original indieleak), calling it a la mulana clone, but even that probably helped spelunky's popularity more than it harmed it.
Again, no. Perhaps there was some level of self-pity (I guess there always is, sort of, to a degree), but mostly it was not giving a shit about giving a shit.
That's exactly how they wanted to come off as, and it saddens me that you actually bought it, Corpus.
(Dragonmaw's last post also pretty much sums up everything hidden that isn't in this particular thread.)
Player
