In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

[Nytem4re]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
This is pretty much the definition of false equivalence. I sent screenshots of a “private community” that was effectively conspiring to get Ruby removed from her place as moderator because of past transgressions and personal squabbles. Which by the way, I sent these images to the Site Administrator that a dangerous precedent was beginning to unfold that I personally found problematic despite being friendly acquaintances with the core group at the time. I never aired these images “publicly” and told Mahz specifically that I quote:

_{“It seems there is a particularly vocal sub-sect of the unofficial discord server that are confused, angry, and disappointed. I’m not sure how to report things in this manner since I don’t want to waste your time – I’m sure Cynder is expressing her concerns. With that said, I wish you the best in this situation.”}

It is only comparable if you take things at face value alone. But I do appreciate you trying to sow more dissent, Nyt.

@Inkarnate

"sowing dissent"

Must be why the United States is destroyed, seeing how much criticism ther- wait.

Please. Criticism isn't going sow much dissent.

I've already addressed this so I don't see why you keep making this point.

I mean, if you look at the screens that were given, Nutts was pretty vocal about how he wanted me gone because I was "toxic" and "lustful for power".

Could you not argue that the taker of that screenshot was worried about the "dangerous precedent" this was setting? It suggested that he was going to shadowban anyone who weren't positive.

[mickilennial]

@Inkarnate What I'm gathering from your "logic" is that sharing screenshots is perfectly okay as long as we enter a knee-jerk panic-response about how dangerous the screenshot's contents are.

And/or as long as I'm snitching to a mod and not to [insert person who mods dislike here].

This is pretty pathetic even as far as mental gymnastics go, seeing as how it's an eloquent, dressed up way of saying "as I say, not as I do."

@pugbutter

Is this the mob now? No, it isn’t. If you want to make an ‘analogy’, this is more to the point of where a concerned citizen sent a report of disruptive behavior. You’re right that this is a situation of “snitching”, but I don’t see reporting issues as so inherently negative as you do. Again, this is false equivalency not a double-standard scenario.

Could you not argue that the taker of that screenshot was worried about the "dangerous precedent" this was setting? It suggested that he was going to shadowban anyone who weren't positive.

@Nytem4re

I get that everyone has concerns about the suggestion of making it more difficult for troublemakers to utilize the site, but that’s simply a difference of policy thought. I personally don’t disagree with the notion of “if they are causing trouble, remove their ability to post status updates, they keep being a repeat offender do more to impede them”. It’s no different than a message board I’ve been on in the last two decades where moderators remove posting privileges from offending users for a temporary amount of time. I don’t see the problem – but some people do for a variety of reasons, which is fair.

[Didgeridont]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
This is pretty much the definition of false equivalence. I sent screenshots of a “private community” that was effectively conspiring to get Ruby removed from her place as moderator because of past transgressions and personal squabbles. Which by the way, I sent these images to the Site Administrator that a dangerous precedent was beginning to unfold that I personally found problematic despite being friendly acquaintances with the core group at the time. I never aired these images “publicly” and told Mahz specifically that I quote:

_{“It seems there is a particularly vocal sub-sect of the unofficial discord server that are confused, angry, and disappointed. I’m not sure how to report things in this manner since I don’t want to waste your time – I’m sure Cynder is expressing her concerns. With that said, I wish you the best in this situation. I’m currently watching the situation unfold. I’ve sent several picture evidence that I have forwarded to you.”}

It is only comparable if you take things at face value alone. But I do appreciate you trying to sow more dissent, Nyt.

@Inkarnate

I think trying to make blanket statements regarding people who are legitimately frustrated and labeling them all as a threat to the stability of the guild sets a dangerous precedent. I think trying to obfuscate the truth and make up excuses for a person's actions sets a dangerous precedent. I think that sending images and indirectly alluding that something must be done to stifle a portion of your own community sets a dangerous precedent. I think that focusing on the diction and rhetorical design of an argument rather than its context sets a dangerous precedent.

I think deceit and secrecy sets a dangerous precedent.

[DruSM157]

Okay, I've tried to read this whole thread over and over again. I've been looking at the sides here, trying to figure out exactly what are people's dogs in this race and I just can't seem to understand one thing:

What's the end goal here?

Is it to get several mods removed? Is it to get new mods installed into power via popular vote? Is it to gut the entire moderation staff? Is it to instill rules that those in here demand? Is it to get bans removed for certain people?

Because right now this feels like a giant "he said, she said" thread, time and time again. Everyone posting screencaps with a gotcha mentality. Why the hell was there a need to make this thread in the first place? Why wasn't all this evidence just sent to Mahz or another unaffiliated mod? Why the hell has it just become a big bonfire for people to mob up around, ready to burn the effigies of those in "power" that they hate? Because it feels to me this thread's purpose was less inclined to protest and more inclined to incite a riot.

This entire thing isn't going to make anything better, it's just going to make people stressed, angry, and add unnecessary work to try and make peace with folks.

[Cyndyr]

What's the end goal here?

@DruSM157

Taken from earlier in this thread:

We've had genuine concerns and requests, denied time and time again by other mods- While I am appreciative you are willing to hear me out, again, as I pointed out earlier, there's really no point when the head admin already said he would stand by my ban with little to no discussion, as evidenced by j8cob's attempt.

I forgot to also add I wanted uniform application of the rules- You weren't there on the discord when I decided to air my shortcoming about babycrib and the lack of a proper warn then ban system, (Chai, another user on the thread also expressed the same misgivings about the so called "babycrib") Yet only I was targeted. So why was Chai, this other user not targeted? She can vouch for me since babycrib is obviously now deleted. It makes little to no sense, which is why I've really not talked about the issues I had until now- seeing as Nutts and Mahz are willing to disregard what I say, I didn't feel there was a point in protesting any of it.

@Nytem4re

I would like to see more solid rules that can't be interpreted as the administration sees fit. This would be ideal for both the Discord and website itself. I think that adding new members to the Staff team would be a viable suggestion as well seeing as we seem to rotate between the same seven individuals or so. I'm also not necessarily saying to demote anyone, but there may be grounds to argue for this as well.

@Cyndyr

• Mods do their jobs. (This one is harder for some than for others.)
• Mods do their jobs in a prompt and timely fashion.
• Mods do their jobs without bias, prejudice, or favoritism.
• Mods do their jobs without whining about how hard it is and how little it pays. You volunteered your way into the position and you can volunteer your way out of it if actually fulfilling your obligations is, for any reason, too difficult.
• Mods do all of the above with transparency and honesty.

@pugbutter

[mickilennial]

I think trying to make blanket statements regarding people who are legitimately frustrated and labeling them all as a threat to the stability of the guild sets a dangerous precedent. I think trying to obfuscate the truth and make up excuses for a person's actions sets a dangerous precedent. I think that sending images and indirectly alluding that something must be done to stifle a portion of your own community sets a dangerous precedent. I think that focusing on the diction and rhetorical design of an argument rather than its context sets a dangerous precedent.

I think deceit and secrecy sets a dangerous precedent.

@Didgeridont

“I like to condescend and patronize someone with veiled passive aggressive comments instead of having civil discourse.”

I think that means I’m pretty much done engaging in this dialogue for the moment, unless something stated by Nyt or someone else comes up I probably won’t be responding any further as I fear I will possibly get emotionally compromised by the rhetoric or content that will progress from this dialogue.

[Nytem4re]

<Snipped quote by Didgeridont>
“I like to condescend and patronize someone with veiled passive aggressive comments instead of having civil discourse.”

@Inkarnate

Which is exactly what you did? Hell, you even put a laugh reaction on a previous reply of mine.

Or this

"But I do appreciate you trying to sow more dissent, Nyt."

If you're going ask for civil discourse at least act the part. I'm willing to have this dialogue with you, but at this point you just seem intent on disregarding what we say.

[Cyndyr]

Because right now this feels like a giant "he said, she said" thread, time and time again. Everyone posting screencaps with a gotcha mentality. Why the hell was there a need to make this thread in the first place? Why wasn't all this evidence just sent to Mahz or another unaffiliated mod? Why the hell has it just become a big bonfire for people to mob up around, ready to burn the effigies of those in "power" that they hate? Because it feels to me this thread's purpose was less inclined to protest and more inclined to incite a riot.

@DruSM157

My apologies, I missed this part, but this was done as well which can be seen on this post. This thread was not created to "incite a riot" and I've been personally doing my best to remain as welcoming and civil as possible, but seeing that our previous attempts were met with disregard, what are desperate users to do? This isn't about looking for attention or a chance to stir drama, it's actually about trying to have a civil discussion in order to find solutions to problems that are even acknowledged by those that aren't involved. That may not be true for every person in this thread, but it is certainly true for the person who created this thread - me.

[mickilennial]

Which is exactly what you did? Hell, you even put a laugh reaction on a previous reply of mine.

Or this

"But I do appreciate you trying to sow more dissent, Nyt."

If you're going ask for civil discourse at least act the part. I'm willing to have this dialogue with you, but at this point you just seem intent on disregarding what we say.

@Nytem4re

You did certainly try to bring me back in this and admittedly I could’ve expressed my comment with less sardonic quips and dismissive remarks. I apologize for that in hindsight, but I do think it is sowing dissent though I probably should have articulated this in a better form. That said, you are correct that I ‘laughed’ at said post. I thought it was ridiculous to be brought up since it reminds me of the whole sentiment of “well they did it too so its okay!” which I’ve always lambasted as an argument.

[Nytem4re]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
You did certainly try to bring me back in this and admittedly I could’ve expressed my comment with less sardonic quips and dismissive remarks. I apologize for that in hindsight, but I do think it is sowing dissent though I probably should have articulated this in a better form. That said, you are correct that I ‘laughed’ at said post. I thought it was ridiculous to be brought up since it reminds me of the whole sentiment of “well they did it too so its okay!” which I’ve always lambasted as an argument.

@Inkarnate

“well they did it too so its okay!”

Which nutts did? So you agree with me?

Which I criticized within the first few sentences?

[TheTwistedOne]

Okay, I've tried to read this whole thread over and over again. I've been looking at the sides here, trying to figure out exactly what are people's dogs in this race and I just can't seem to understand one thing:

What's the end goal here?

Is it to get several mods removed? Is it to get new mods installed into power via popular vote? Is it to gut the entire moderation staff? Is it to instill rules that those in here demand? Is it to get bans removed for certain people?

Because right now this feels like a giant "he said, she said" thread, time and time again. Everyone posting screencaps with a gotcha mentality. Why the hell was there a need to make this thread in the first place? Why wasn't all this evidence just sent to Mahz or another unaffiliated mod? Why the hell has it just become a big bonfire for people to mob up around, ready to burn the effigies of those in "power" that they hate? Because it feels to me this thread's purpose was less inclined to protest and more inclined to incite a riot.

This entire thing isn't going to make anything better, it's just going to make people stressed, angry, and add unnecessary work to try and make peace with folks.

@DruSM157

[pugbutter]

@inkarnate You think a private Discord channel being discontent with the current state of the website, gathering evidence to support these grievances (ie. screenshots), and vocally expressing their opinions is a "dangerous precedent."

Whereas mods decrying this behavior and, in the same breath, sending forth their little spies to engage in it, is not hypocritical at all.

Because of a meme fallacy?

It's certainly an equivalency, but not a false one. I begin to suspect you're just using big words and hoping their academic airs will intimidate the meanieheads back into their dark corner without putting up any more of a fight.

You also either didn't read the thread, or, while attempting to read it, failed to comprehend its contents, as evidenced in the fact that you're still persuaded that @Nytem4re is only here to "sow dissent," spread drama, and otherwise watch the site burn. I guess it's impossible that he feels like his and his friend's bans were unjust, seeing as how the mods are perfect and above having to follow their own rules.

[mickilennial]

“well they did it too so its okay!”

Which nutts did? So you agree with me?

@Nytem4re

Unfortunately not, because I value context and put more weight in those who perpetuate an issue than those who respond to one.

[Nytem4re]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
Unfortunately not, because I value context and put more weight in those who perpetuate an issue than those who respond to one.

@Inkarnate

As for the screenshots by Cyndyr, I acknowledge that she was not in the original dispute but over time she became involved, I am not disputing that I did take and obtain some screenshots, but I will state that I was not the one who started the screenshots, that I did not share the ones from the staff discussion, and that instead of participating in these actions we have on multiple fronts made mountains out of molehills.

@NuttsnBolts

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
You did certainly try to bring me back in this and admittedly I could’ve expressed my comment with less sardonic quips and dismissive remarks. I apologize for that in hindsight, but I do think it is sowing dissent though I probably should have articulated this in a better form. That said, you are correct that I ‘laughed’ at said post. I thought it was ridiculous to be brought up since it reminds me of the whole sentiment of “well they did it too so its okay!” which I’ve always lambasted as an argument.

@Inkarnate

Seems like you should take that sentiment up with Nutts then.

Yeah... I'm done really discussing this with you. You begin to start chastising people for being passive aggressive, yet you were too, which you even admit yourself. You don't show the same respect you expect from others.

I'm not going to reply to you further. Have a good day.

[mickilennial]

@inkarnate You think a private Discord channel being discontent with the current state of the website, gathering evidence to support these grievances (ie. screenshots), and vocally expressing their opinions is a "dangerous precedent."

Whereas mods decrying this behavior and, in the same breath, sending forth their little spies to engage in it, is not hypocritical at all.

Because of a meme fallacy?

It's certainly an equivalency, but not a false one. I begin to suspect you're just using big words and hoping their academic airs will intimidate the meanieheads back into their dark corner without putting up any more of a fight.

You also either didn't read the thread, or, while attempting to read it, failed to comprehend its contents, as evidenced in the fact that you're still persuaded that @Nytem4re is only here to "sow dissent," spread drama, and otherwise watch the site burn. I guess it's impossible that he feels like his and his friend's bans were unjust, seeing as how the mods are perfect and above having to follow their own rules.

@pugbutter

You were not currently a user in that chat when the events transpired in May, so I can understand you thinking that individuals were sent to gather information but this is not the case. I was friendly acquaintances with the group at the time and had joined Valhalla under my own free will – I’m sure many will remember that I had openly criticized certain staff members at the time, so I was not a “shill” or “patsy” and certainly not a spy. I simply came to a conclusion that was in opposition to the group at the time and tried to reason with everyone to not create a bonafide witch-hunt when Ruby was appointed (which I will say Cynder also tried to quell herself, she did few things wrong at the time). The mods did not send spies is basically what I am saying here.

No, I comprehended the contents, I just fundamentally disagree on the issue.

[pugbutter]

@Inkarnate Whether the mods petitioned you to gather these screenshots, or whether your own Quisling spirit spurned you to gather them of your own accord, is quite irrelevant, because that's not the question at hand. The question is: did the mods accept your screenshots once you delivered them, and once in their possession, did these screenshots make an impact on their decisions and actions to follow?

If so, then they're still hypocrites, because they have benefited from the same "tactics" and behaviors as which they berate in passages like this:

Your actions here, combined with Grim's actions, and even the actions of the staff, have affected many members in a negitive [sic] way. Friendships have been lost, trust shattered throughout the community, and the screenshots of who is the worse person needs [sic] to stop if we have any desire to move forward.

NuttsnBolts

And really this little hypocrisy is microcosmic of the much larger ones at hand, both confirmed and speculated.

[mickilennial]

@Inkarnate The question is: did the mods accept your screenshots once you delivered them, and once in their possession, did these screenshots make an impact on their decisions and actions to follow?

If so, then they're still hypocrites, because they have benefited from the same "tactics".

@pugbutter

Then maybe we should give the staff room to explain why they do not view it as a double-standard?

[pugbutter]

@Inkarnate Are you saying that an action is justified simply because the moderators say it's OK? Sounds an awful lot like an "appeal to authority" to me.

Not as catchy as "false equivalency," I'll admit, but ... ;)

[mickilennial]

Heh. That’s funny given you just likened me to Vidkun Quisling, who supported the Nazi’s. This is how you want to talk to people – likening the moderators to actual fascists who exterminated several members of my family.

[Cyndyr]

Then maybe we should give the staff room to explain why they do not view it as a double-standard?

@Inkarnate

They're free to do so. I'm quite happy that Hank, Kangaroo, Rilla, Ruby, and Nutts have all popped in to offer their input as it is. I never had intended for this to be anything other than a discussion nor do I want them to feel attacked in any manner. If they want to explain and/or discuss anything that has been mentioned here, then I want them to feel welcomed to do so.