In Regards to Wild West

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Beggers can't be choosers dude. You can't ask for a place to post whatever you want, then say 'Not that really famous place everyone knows you can post whatever you want, I don't like it!'
Try the YouTube comments. Try 8chan or memechan or 9gag or chanchan.

As for not having a choice, yeah, duh. You're on this website. It has rules. Rules for this website are not optional. Same with literally everything else.
You want to drive on the road, follow the laws. Want to walk down the street, well we got laws for that too. There is no place on earth you can do literally whatever you want, all the time, consequence free. Even streaking in the antarctic has the consequence of being really cold - its not the antarctic clamping down on your freedom to be warm.

No one is saying you have to leave. But if the WW was the only thing keeping you here, then we'd understand if you showed up less.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

I think it's telling that so much of the discussion in here, what was in Wild West, and what happens in Religion and Politics comes down to an Us Against Them argument.

So much of the discussion dwelling on there being an Us and Them means no matter the decision we make, it's always Against Us and For Them. This is the nature of the discussion because it's an inescapable frame, no matter what, it always looks like someone's playing favorites because every decision simultaneously benefits one group and spites the other. That's the framing you've made it, so having a productive discussion will always devolve back to "You did this to Us, so you're favoring Them." It's untenable, you know it is, and you don't care because no matter what you'll always feel like we're part of the Them.

I hope you consider that when we're making decisions, it's not an Us and Them. We don't pick which group we're siding with on a binary. We look at behaviors, we consider how those behaviors interface with the forums at large, and we try to keep track of the results. This is no different from the editorial side of the Escapist having an editorial voice, nor is it any different than what video series got commissioned, nor was it any different than which mods were chosen, or what Community Management application was picked. All of these were a long-string of measured decisions made resulting in the forum growing from a Featured Content and Gaming Discussion board to a large forum with a Reviews section, badges, usergroups, premium members, and for a while, a rules-free forum where users were given a lot of leash. All of these decisions came from trying to make the community around this site an ideal place to visit.

The Wild West did not fit that metric. It was boundless in its energy to argue, to spite. So boundless, in fact, that what happened in its walls were spilling out into the rest of the forums. Personal fights found there way beyond the fun-loving free-spirit walls of the place. And further, much of its comings and goings weren't that fun-loving, just free to be vitriolic. That isn't the shape for the Escapist.

If that's what you want, you're welcome to leave. Please find somewhere you'd enjoy more; life is to short to dwell someplace you're unhappy.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well.. sorry to say it, but too bad.
The mods and CM are the only ones "running" this place now, with Defy seemingly sitting on their thumbs and twiddling them. The shitty thing about making promises while running a place is that things change and sometimes promises have to be broken. That doesn't necessarily mean that they like having to break a promise, but sometimes it has to be done. And no matter what the mod team did - aside from just doing nothing - people would be crying "Power trip!" "Mod takeover!"

Making the Wild West lawless and utterly separated from all but 3 of the site's rules - one of which was introduced after the infamous Wynncident - was a mistake. I'd have been all for a relaxed moderation forum where people could have their image threads and whatnot that wasn't made to strictly adhere to the CoC but still had rules, but the WW was poorly executed and it allowed people to harass other users without reprisal, and they did.

Y'all were given a thing and abused it, so now you have no thing.

Of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but, you don't get to pretend you're not ignoring and breaking promises when you are. Call it what it is, don't try to bullshit it.

As we saw, the majority of people being abusive and harassing were people who didn't even want Wild West around to begin with. Not use their attempts to get the place closed as an excuse to do so. As was done with Wynn, effort should have been made remove those trouble makers. It feels an awful lot like this was the plan all along given it's something people in charge have been trying to do repeatedly.

Just as Fiz has said, Defy holds the keys, they could turn this place off tomorrow, that doesn't mean they should.
Likewise, just because the mods can remove the wildwest, despite us already having a vote and saying "No", doesn't mean they should.

 

[Red Sentinel]

B. It's not what the original staff of the site implemented.

... several times it's been noted that the mods or staff did not ask for the WW to be implemented, it was a 'higher power' as Noe describes it that put the WW in place. The mods didn't ask for it, so I think they can do whatever they want with it since they're essentially the ones in charge now

Exactly.

And this time the disgruntled people can't go whining to Archon on twitter in order to get their way.

 

[RedRockRun]

I don't really talk about it on here that much, but yeah, I have a STRONG interest in all things paranormal/supernatural. X-Files and Coast to Coast AM had a pretty big impact on me when I first encountered them.

Coast to Coast AM is great. I used to tune into that when I was at university. One guest claimed to be part of a research group that was working on time travel and power from frame-dragging. When asked if they had successfully traveled to the past and future, his answer was, "Short answer: Yes." The way he described it, they had been able to travel time in a lab setting, and I envisioned some scenario where someone steps within a chamber which contains a localized pocket where time has been altered.

Although thinking back on it, time travel doesn't really seem like it could ever be viable for actually travelling into the past or far into the future. Given time and space are proportional, if you travel any distance forward or backward in time, you'd also have to travel through space, and if you're going backwards, then you'd end up in empty space since the Earth is moving something like 50,000 mph through space. Likewise, if you were somehow able to travel back in time without travelling through space, you'd also end up in emptiness because the Earth had not yet reached the position in space that you'd inhabit upon making the jump. If you were to travel through time and space and end up on Earth in the past or far future, then it would be an alternate universe.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I think it's telling that so much of the discussion in here, what was in Wild West, and what happens in Religion and Politics comes down to an Us Against Them argument.

So much of the discussion dwelling on there being an Us and Them means no matter the decision we make, it's always Against Us and For Them. This is the nature of the discussion because it's an inescapable frame, no matter what, it always looks like someone's playing favorites because every decision simultaneously benefits one group and spites the other. That's the framing you've made it, so having a productive discussion will always devolve back to "You did this to Us, so you're favoring Them." It's untenable, you know it is, and you don't care because no matter what you'll always feel like we're part of the Them.

I hope you consider that when we're making decisions, it's not an Us and Them. We don't pick which group we're siding with on a binary. We look at behaviors, we consider how those behaviors interface with the forums at large, and we try to keep track of the results. This is no different from the editorial side of the Escapist having an editorial voice, nor is it any different than what video series got commissioned, nor was it any different than which mods were chosen, or what Community Management application was picked. All of these were a long-string of measured decisions made resulting in the forum growing from a Featured Content and Gaming Discussion board to a large forum with a Reviews section, badges, usergroups, premium members, and for a while, a rules-free forum where users were given a lot of leash. All of these decisions came from trying to make the community around this site an ideal place to visit.

The Wild West did not fit that metric. It was boundless in its energy to argue, to spite. So boundless, in fact, that what happened in its walls were spilling out into the rest of the forums. Personal fights found there way beyond the fun-loving free-spirit walls of the place. And further, much of its comings and goings weren't that fun-loving, just free to be vitriolic. That isn't the shape for the Escapist.

If that's what you want, you're welcome to leave. Please find somewhere you'd enjoy more; life is to short to dwell someplace you're unhappy.

But there wasn't really a compromise made at all. It was just a total and complete shutdown of WW with no dialog, no change in the rules planned, or even any forewarning. Hence the "Us vs Them" mentalities that are here. There is no middle ground because the decision you guys have made has given us no middle ground. And I'm not arguing for total and utter lawlessness. That really would be awful. I'm not an anarchist. But the WW wasn't /b/. Not even close.

Once again, I understand that you are just trying to do your best with the information that you have, but our choices define us. In this case, your choices define what kind of site this will be, and as administrators and moderators, that is and will be inescapable.

 

[Baffle]

I'm pretty sure just one instance on non-consensual dogging is harassment.

So that's it then, huh? One mean name and off with their heads?

Ha ha ha. Dogging.

 

[Veldel]

good riddance

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Ha ha ha. Dogging.

Baffling.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

As was done with Wynn, effort should have been made remove those trouble makers. It feels an awful lot like this was the plan all along given it's something people in charge have been trying to do repeatedly.

Wynn's case was an extreme situation because he was literally breaking the site. They can't simply "remove" the troublemakers because the entire point of Wild West was that it had no moderation aside from removing any porn, illegal content, or site breaking. Do you not remember the response to Wynn's Pub Club being revoked??? People were going all "Well if they can just revoke Pub Club like that then what else can they do???"

Just as Lack has said, Defy holds the keys, they could turn this place off tomorrow, that doesn't mean they should.
Likewise, just because the mods can remove the wildwest, despite us already having a vote and saying "No", doesn't mean they should.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should" isn't a compelling argument in this case.
Defy holds the keys, they could turn this place off tomorrow, that's their choice and whether or not they should is a matter up for debate that involves details us regular users don't have access to. The mods moderate the forums, stuff like this is literally their entire bloody job, and just because the users said "We want this!" doesn't mean the moderation team has to abide by it to infinity and beyond. There are limits to things, and whether you like it or not a limit has been reached, and this limit is not and will not be dictated by the common user. This forum is not a democracy. That the moderation team allowed users to give their input months ago was a courtesy to us.

 

[The Lunatic]

As was done with Wynn, effort should have been made remove those trouble makers. It feels an awful lot like this was the plan all along given it's something people in charge have been trying to do repeatedly.

Wynn's case was an extreme situation because he was literally breaking the site. They can't simply "remove" the troublemakers because the entire point of Wild West was that it had no moderation aside from removing any porn, illegal content, or site breaking. Do you not remember the response to Wynn's Pub Club being revoked??? People were going all "Well if they can just revoke Pub Club like that then what else can they do???"

Just as Lack has said, Defy holds the keys, they could turn this place off tomorrow, that doesn't mean they should.
Likewise, just because the mods can remove the wildwest, despite us already having a vote and saying "No", doesn't mean they should.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should" isn't a compelling argument in this case.
Defy holds the keys, they could turn this place off tomorrow, that's their choice and whether or not they should is a matter up for debate that involves details us regular users don't have access to. The mods moderate the forums, stuff like this is literally their entire bloody job, and just because the users said "We want this!" doesn't mean the moderation team has to abide by it to infinity and beyond. There are limits to things, and whether you like it or not a limit has been reached, and this limit is not and will not be dictated by the common user. This forum is not a democracy. That the moderation team allowed users to give their input months ago was a courtesy to us.

Better to remove one or two people who never wanted to be there in the first place than everyone, surely?
Harassment itself is pretty illegal, so, I mean, it's not like there isn't grounds.

Well, the entire purpose of WW is that it doesn't really require moderation. So, the idea that it somehow added greatly to their duties to... Not moderate it doesn't quite make sense.
Added to that, if they were struggling even with the load of moderating a unmoderated forum, it's not moderators are such a rare commodity.

The staff can and do more or less do whatever they want. They bring back moderators with histories of abusing members of the forum, they ignore what people want, have obvious bias and so on. I'm not saying "You can't do the, the internet police will get you!" I'm just saying "Don't pretend otherwise".

 

[Marik2]

Epyc wynn was right all along.!

We should have listened!

Reeeeee

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Epyc wynn was right all along.!

We should have listened!

Reeeeee

Who?

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

But there wasn't really a compromise made at all. It was just a total and complete shutdown of WW with no dialog, no change in the rules planned, or even any forewarning. Hence the "Us vs Them" mentalities that are here. There is no middle ground because the decision you guys have made has given us no middle ground. And I'm not arguing for total and utter lawlessness. That really would be awful. I'm not an anarchist. But the WW wasn't /b/. Not even close.

I think there's no middle ground because the framing prevents there from being one.

There are middle grounds for what users want, and there have been for years. Users who want moderation-light areas to discuss topics exist with usergroups. Users who want to have interpersonal interactions on more personal scales are likewise welcome to start their own Discord servers or create their own forums or start a subreddit or any number of other venues. Users who want something the Escapist isn't have grounds to which they are welcome, and it is not moderation's imperative to develop their tools for them. The Escapist has never been that, even before DEFY owned it, before Alloy Digital owned it, even before it had forums at all.

Even if you believe there is worse internet behind the horizon, nor do you believe you're arguing for anarchy, your belief that this forum works doesn't match what the moderation team has collectively decided. I recognize that the disparity between those opinions means you're put in a more unhappy position, and for that I'm sorry, but as I said in my opening post, there's no reason to stand on ceremony here. If you're not happy here, find somewhere you are. Or come here less, and use our forums more sparingly as you are able. That's fine too.

In this case, your choices define what kind of site this will be, and as administrators and moderators, that is and will be inescapable.

But this is absolutely correct. We've made the decision that this site is not the sort of site that can handle nor should have access to a Wild West-style forum.

However, that is not an "Us and Them" decision. We did not do so to be punitive or spiteful to a certain type of user. This was a decision that better enables the moderation team to do its job, and should lead to a more sociable experience for all users. Those who disagree are welcome to. Those who attack over that disagree will find that behavior to be less sociable.

That is the site this will be, this decision is made in service of that.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

And where was the problem obvious?

Where you aware of the many callout threads, many being repeated to particular users? I think that's enough on its own. Making an entire thread dedicated to rally against someone is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable in my opinion.

How about the many comments made by some that absolutely despised certain people, and made it their mission to counter everything ever said by said user, or indeed be the ones to host the callout threads themselves? I'm not gonna name names here in the open, I refuse to do a callout like that. But believe me, it was absolutely there.

Just because you didn't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there or never happened. It's like saying you never get robbed, so why are other people complaining about being robbed? Cause clearly there's no robbery ever because you alone never saw or experienced it, right? That's fucking moon logic right there

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Epyc wynn was right all along.!

We should have listened!

Reeeeee

Don't turn Wynn into a bona fide martyr. Please.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think there's no middle ground because the framing prevents there from being one.

You talk about there not being an "Us and Them" even though we're all aware that the staff has been trying to get rid of the Wild West for a while.
I mean, hell the last time BasementCat got shut down on that, they disappeared from posting in public entirely.
You can't say that it doesn't exist when you've all shown clearly that you do take a side and have chosen to be against certain things. You can't claim to not have bias when you're chummy with certain members who do the very things you then complain about is poisoning the forums.

Nobody expects you to be opinionless robots, but, blaming people for picking up on the obvious as "You're framing it that way" falls more than a little flat.

I mean, you talk about it like some discussion was had, some degree of back and forth, but, we can see the opinions of the moderators of The Wild west in the archive itself, and it's pretty clear basically none of you were for it.

So, if some hard-fought discussion was had, and opinions were weighed, who was representing the majority of the forum who wanted the place to stay?

 

[Trunkage]

StatusNil getting a warning for stating his opinion in a civil manner demonstrates just what is wrong with the site and it's moderation.

You know this post my be the proof that WW was bad. 1. You didn't insult anyone 2. You actual made an argument. Thanks for adding something to the conversation.
As to your argument, I honestly got through half StatusNil's post before shutting it down. I have to read more to make an appropriate comment. You though, in this post, imply that the mods should change to suit your particular needs. I'm going to have to ask for evidence for change over everyone else.

The problem some have with it though is if it were some other members saying the exact same thing there'd be no consequences for them.

I dont know what you specifically mean by 'it'. My assumption was mods or WW or StatusNil's knock. I'm going to go with mods and that they have no consequences. So on that assumption...
Mods would change things for the community. When people complain about mods, there is some commonality but there are some differences. Well, at least that's what I've noticed. There isn't a big rallying point other than they generally favour left leaning members (personally I dont believe that.) If there was more commonality, there would be more change.

A long time ago, I realised people werent going to do what I want them to do. Governments, corporations, staff memebers (and now my kids.) While I try to hard to change people, I realise that I probably won't make that change. I can change my self easier than I can change another person. That's how I see the mods. They arent going to do whatever I want. I accept that and I move on. (And I think spending your time pointing out how bad mods are will just antagonise them and make them less amenable. That defeats your own arguement.) Compare this to how people treat Trump. They lambast him and that doesnt change his behaviour. In fact, it makes him double down.

But, hey. Maybe I'm just dreaming

 

[BreakfastMan]

So that's it then, huh? One mean name and off with their heads?

Only if it's Zontar

the mods put too much work into burying his past infractions and bringing him back for people to make a callout thread against him

Racism? Fine. Sexism? Just fine. Transphobia? Of course it's fine. Homophobia? Oh you know it is already fine. Calling someone a mean name? Hey now, slow down there bud.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So that's it then, huh? One mean name and off with their heads?

Only if it's Zontar

the mods put too much work into burying his past infractions and bringing him back for people to make a callout thread against him

Racism? Fine. Sexism? Just fine. Transphobia? Of course it's fine. Homophobia? Oh you know it is already fine. Calling someone a mean name? Hey now, slow down there bud.

I think there should be a policy that name-calling doesn't count if the person would take it as a compliment. Like if I were to call you a "fanatical illiberal Stalinist fanboy" that shouldn't get me in trouble for the aforementioned reason.