next »

[Bandages]

well assholes have a find of way of getting along

It's pretty weird

[Skofo]

One could do the same thing you're doing to try to justify Hitler's behavior. Poor Hitler wasn't looking to cause disruption, he just wanted to restore Germany and make humanity better. He just didn't do it in the best way because his personality prevented him from not being a dickhead.

[RCIX]

Seriously, show me a post by this gentleman that doesn't fit the exact format I've described.

this entire thread.

The thread where bento's excellent contribution was derided and then ignored?

You mean, the trolling contribution that was clearly nothing but a poke at bvanevery just to derail the thread for the sole reason that he created it?

@Skofo: That's a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we allow people like bvanevery to continue doesn't mean hitler gets a free pass.

I also got a PM from him last night indicating that I was one of the people that he was interested in hearing. The trick is just to keep a cool head and don't melt down the second you don't like one of his posts.

Why are we going to ban bvanevery, yet Core Xii was allowed to stick around when demonstrating similar behavior? Just give him time. That's all.

[s0]

One could do the same thing you're doing to try to justify Hitler's behavior. Poor Hitler wasn't looking to cause disruption, he just wanted to restore Germany and make humanity better. He just didn't do it in the best way because his personality prevented him from not being a dickhead.

Godwin says hello.

Was about time too, thanks Skofo.

[J. R. Hill]

Sadly not - if you MAKE it happen when people thought you couldn't, then you'd be a wizard. Predicting it makes you clever. Foretelling it makes you an oracle or perhaps a prophet.

Sweet.

[Skofo]

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

It certainly is a fallacy, but it is not slippery slope. I think it's funny how of all the fallacies present in this thread (such as this one found in Core Xii's arguments), the Hitler comparison is the only one pointed out.

And he's already agreed to work on it.

Where? Your only evidence is a citation of what Mephs said about him, but I did not see bvanevery say anything about being willing to work on his attitude.

[supershigi]

The trick is just to keep a cool head and don't melt down the second you don't like one of his posts.

It's nice of you to try and see his side, but the quoted statement is a very inaccurate description of what happened.  I'm one of the people that bvanevery is negative towards, yet I never "melted down" as a result of disliking his post.  I read his original post in the emergent gameplay thread and attempted to participate in the discussion.  I did so in a very mature, objective, and reasonable manner.  My posts were completely void of anything resembling an insult, and I took the time to read and understand all of his posts (including the rules for his forum rpg) before commenting.  I never behaved in a way that could have been construed as "melting down." 

It was only after seeing bvanevery repeatedly insult people and refuse to refute their very decent arguments that I pointed out this behavior to him.  I only chose to point it out because he was unknowingly destroying his own thread.  And even then, I did it in a very reasonable and objective way.  Despite the fact that I remained logical and level headed the entire time, he still reacted very immaturely to me.  I could say the same of Paul... everything Paul said to bvanevery was remarkably calm and open-minded, but Brandon still flipped out and refused to talk to him afterwards.  Was it because Paul "melted down the second he didn't agree with him"?  Absolutely not.

So while I appreciate your open-mindedness and I think you sound like a very nice person, I think the more accurate description would be: The trick is just to keep a cool head and agree with what he says.  And I don't think that's a healthy way to function in a forum, which is supposed to be a place of discussion.

@bento_smile: Those were some good quotes

[starsrift]

@starsrift

i'm not sure i'm following what you are saying; you're saying what i said was wrong because it's too simple, but provide no more complex alternative model?

I was just meaning that a generalization that assumes correlation for no apparent reason is not only inherently incorrect, but also not an excuse for behaviour, good or bad - not for Mr. Van Every, or anyone else for that matter.

Basically, what Skofo said.

Regardless, I think the bottom line is, I'm with Bento. I'll just go somewhere else to read and talk about game design.

[KM]

I don't know about everyone else, but I can hardly see any similarity in Core to bvanevery, even though he says that he's more like bvanevery than the rest of us. That or it could be his highly attractive profile pic that is seducing me. Which is probably a pic of a guy since Core is 22/Finland/Male but then I get confused by what looks like bra straps in the pic. At this point I have a meltdown akin to an Aquabats song.

[gimymblert]

I think the way to engage such a person is to first reformulate what he had said, then extrapolate from that to point flaws or lack, and then to use those flaws and lack as a opening to an argument.

It will whether react to your reformulation or your conclusion.

If he did not respond to point made, he is considering it but didn't make his mind yet.

BUT if you confront directly the flaw of his thought, He will have the impression you want to antagonize him because you whether "did not understand" or "you did not like him" and want to prove him wrong at all cost.

It's about avoiding direct personal confrontation and keep idea as the transaction.

EDIT:
Never say him "You are wrong, this is what it mean because of that" but say "this idea seem like that but really isn't because of that, if it was that, it would lead to that which is the opposite of what you said".

It was interesting for me to discuss with him as an exercise of self control and trying to see someone's version and finding the bridge between two vision.

[Carrie Nation]

This is a fascinating thread.  I doubt I can sway people's minds one way or the other.  I will point out that governments, peoples, and nations have gone through this exercise throughout history.  I hope you transfer whatever you learn from this exercise into real world politics.  It won't be the last time you encounter a judicial panel, a committee, a mob, or a media firestorm.

Other people have brought up some points about what makes a forum healthy, what are the community standards of behavior, and also what constitutes freedom of intellectual debate.  You as a community are in the process of deciding these things for yourselves, and at present, I do not see myself as part of this.  Any more than a woman sitting in a dunking booth with a "Witch" sign hung about her neck feels like one of the regular townsfolk.

Yes, you need to decide for yourselves what "due process" is.  In the long term it will demonstrate the strength or weakness of your community.  We've mudwrestled enough already so I won't get into too many things, but there are some points I feel worth mentioning.

• I gave up representing the IGDA Indies externally about a year ago.  There's 3 of us over there who still occasionally talk about indie matters, but the situation at the IGDA seems hopeless.  They can't even get a website infrastructure together to enable anything else.
• I may be a jerk, but I don't make personal attacks.  That's a standard of behavior I hold myself to, and that many of you do not.
• Melly realizes that the mistake she made as a moderator, was publicly singling me out as a troublemaker, without acknowledging the egregious personal attacks that had been made against me earlier in the thread.  I think she's fair-minded enough to acknowledge this, and I think she did do so publicly.
• Derek's leadership in these matters was to barb me about my career success and my sex life.  It wasn't topical, and it was off-putting.  But he owns the website so what can you do, if he thinks it's ok to do it?  I took his comments in stride because I did read past archives quite a bit before first posting, so I was aware of his "fruity fresh" persona and so forth.  I responded candidly about the goals we set in life, and that somehow brought an end to it.

I am only mildly surprised that Derek has chosen a ban poll as his moderation strategy.  For me that does not speak highly for the man, and if saying so gets me banned faster, good.

I hope that as you evolve as a community, some of the other possible strategies for moderating your forums are adopted.  You might be surprised to know that I helped craft moderation policies over at the IGDA.  You wouldn't be shocked to know that their forums were a mess.  You might be shocked to know that I wasn't the one making the mess, and that people far more intellectually violent than myself do exist in the wild.  We debated Mike Capps and Tim Langdell for most of 2009, so how bad do you imagine things got?  You might be shocked to find that the IGDA found a way to tame those wilds, by crafting objective policies, having a strong ethic of moderation, and being willing to consistently enforce so that no one in particular can melt things down.

Yes I'm the magnet for your ire, but I'm also the mirror for your own disruptions.  I can upset you with an idea you don't understand, that I haven't explained, that I said in a nasty way, that you wanted resolved somehow, but what is your reaction?  Your reactions define you as a community, and you can easily become what you claim to despise.

All I could picture.

[Aik]

This thread is making me want to retake one of those personality tests to see if I can fall over the line into INFP - INTP is apparently the jackass personality and I want no part of it.

But in seriousness, please stop saying stupid things. Being an insufferable narcissist is not the same thing.

[RCIX]

You'll notice that he's settled down lately, reserving himself to writing for the Nth order emergent game and a few comments on other threads. That, to me, speaks of more evidence to keep him onboard.

[agj]

I'd be really happy if a Youtube-like system for voting up or down posts was implemented (as suggested by Overkill), and those under a certain threshold getting auto-hidden.

You might be surprised to know that I helped craft moderation policies over at the IGDA.  You wouldn't be shocked to know that their forums were a mess.  (...)  We debated Mike Capps and Tim Langdell for most of 2009, so how bad do you imagine things got?

Hmm, but in July you still didn't know who Tim Langdell even was... (by that time he was a meme here):

I will look up info on Tim Langdell...

[Inane]

I'd be really happy if a Youtube-like system for voting up or down posts was implemented (as suggested by Overkill), and those under a certain threshold getting auto-hidden.

No. System like this in forums usually do terribly (see: Forums with 'karma' systems).

[deathtotheweird]

You'll notice that he's settled down lately, reserving himself to writing for the Nth order emergent game and a few comments on other threads. That, to me, speaks of more evidence to keep him onboard.

but I would wager that it's because there is a banning looming over his head. if he knew he could get away with it (like he was in the past) he'd be up to his old tricks.

[J. R. Hill]

 
Behold!

I foretell it is already too late for Mr. B. VanEvery.
He has chosen his own fate
The bards will lament for ages.

[RCIX]

You'll notice that he's settled down lately, reserving himself to writing for the Nth order emergent game and a few comments on other threads. That, to me, speaks of more evidence to keep him onboard.

but I would wager that it's because there is a banning looming over his head. if he knew he could get away with it (like he was in the past) he'd be up to his old tricks.

I really think you underestimate him

[voidSkipper]

So apparently I'm an INTP as well. Why do I not feel the urge to act like Core Xii and Bvanevery? 

[Xion]

it seems he has made the decision for us.