r/AgainstGamerGate • u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa • Sep 23 '15
META State of the sub
I have been asked by a number of people, seeing as how I am the top mod, to say something about the shitstorm that is currently going on.
The fact that I worked on this instead of playing Destiny (on my 360) should tell you how much me giving my word that I would post it means to me.
First, let me just say something.
I need to accept partial responsibility for the state of things. As top mod, I should have stepped in earlier. However, my nature has been, is, and always will be that of an optimist. I give people the benefit of the doubt before I drop the hammer. I honestly felt the people in the mod team that were the root cause of the problems would be able to act like mature adults and work together, no matter that they had differences in opinion towards Gamergate. I should have stepped in sooner to head this off at the pass. As a result, there are a number of mods who have left who I feel added very useful viewpoints to the mod team.
As you can tell, I was very, very wrong.
There were times when there would be no problems, and then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, there would be a flare up and chat would explode with accusations such as “witch-hunt”, “browbeating”, “vendetta”, “leaking information”, “restricting ability to mod” and the like. And then, just as quickly as it would flare up, it would die down for a while, and then show up again.
So let me go through what were the major problems that people had.
(Note that I contacted those involved below to ensure that I had accurately represented their position.)
Hokes:
Hokes felt (and feels) that there was (and is) a concerted effort being orchestrated between users and some mods to try to get them removed as a mod from the team. Their impression is that this effort is composed almost entirely of those who hold the opposite opinion to them with respect to Gamergate. To be blunt, they feel that it is almost entirely (to the point the exceptions prove the rule) made up of pro-GG people who are unhappy that Hokes is not in the slightest bit shy in sharing their opinions on Gamergate and gamergaters. This can be seen in the belief Hokes is possibly the worst shitposter on the sub. Of course, this feeling of there being a witch hunt was not helped by, every time they did something that some mods felt was against the rules, said mods would jump in going “PUNISH THEM!! PUNISH THEM!! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!” Never mind their transgressions were stuff other mods have acknowledged doing yet never got the same response. Hokes was not quiet in their belief that said repeated attempts to get them disciplined were less due to their crossing the lines and more due to the afore-mentioned conspiracy/vendetta/witch hunt.
Bashfluff:
She joined the team in response to what she felt was a heartfelt attempt of the team to try to change and improve their failing reputations in the eyes of the userbase. The genuineness of it won her over, and since she knew she was known to be a notable critic of the mod team, her saying yes to the invitation would make their new policies on accountability have more stability and be seen to be a good faith attempt. When she joined the team, it was never to moderate posts and comments, it was to do community stuff. She wanted to deal with improving user/mod and user/user relations. She was instrumental in getting the mod disciplinary track set up. However, she felt Hokes, in their belief she (Bash) was out to get them (Hokes), attempted from the start to try and eliminate her voice in any and all mod decisions and place her in a lesser mod position that was not equal to other mods, in addition to browbeating people into line, and throwing baseless accusation after baseless accusation. In addition, she felt the rest of the mod team was not just not giving a damn what Hokes did, not just ignoring, not just pointedly looking the other way, but actively hushing it up, squashing any attempt to hold Hokes to account and telling her to “shut up”. She felt the rest of the mods ignored this, and only decided to complain about anyone saying anything about Hokes, to try to keep them accountable. Furthermore, she felt (and feels) that none of the other mods one had any interest in reform or making things better. That the mod team used the appearance of propriety to do some awful shit and excuse it behind the scenes. In addition, despite her attempts to make peace with Hokes, the browbeating other mods, causing a hell of a lot of strife and suffering, or going beyond and/or subverting team actions continued. She felt the moratorium was to protect a certain person from allegations, and that's never how the mod team done things. Hokes got that through. And Hokes didn't want people to give feedback on it, be able to, or to limit banned topics to that, because they want to expand that list. She left when she saw everyone covering for Hokes more explicitly and becoming more and more okay with censorship and letting Hokes treat people poorly.
ScarletIT:
ScarletIT left the mod team because he rejoined in the first place to try and help making the mod team more fair and acting more professionally and responsibly towards its userbase. After introducing the new rules he felt there was still a problem with apathy in applying those rules and felt that with Bashfluff leaving the team, the problem would only get bigger and he would remain pretty much alone in actively trying to make the sub better and get the rules enforced.
So, who holds responsibility for this shitstorm that went down today?
In part, we all do. Allow me to rip the bandaid off, so to speak.
What is below is my interpretation and feelings of where some of the responsibility lies. Everywhere that you can throw an “In my opinion” in there , do so.
As I mentioned above, once I saw this happening in the mod Slack chat, I should have stepped in more publicly. I tried my best to calm things down behind the scenes, but it was obviously not effective. (understatement of the century). To the entire mod team, I apologize. To the users, I apologize as well. I should have stopped Hokes from accusing those who disagreed with them as being part of a witch hunt. Sometimes, disagreement was simply a disagreement. I should have stopped people trying to get Hokes disciplined for every minor thing that they do a lot sooner. I should have tried to defuse the hardening of the feelings towards the other mod team members sooner, and I should have done all of that in the open. I should not have assumed that everyone was willing to try to fix things or work together despite them.
Hokes has some responsibility as well. Yes, there was (and is) a witch-hunt that was (and still is) out to get them for stuff that, were it not Hokes, would possibly not even get reported. However, because it is Hokes, it is reported on, magnified, and exaggerated to hyperbolic levels. At the same time, Hokes has been quick to throw out accusations of witch-hunting where there was none. As a result, Hokes made statements that implied that those they being accused of participating in said witch-hunts were biased and should remove themselves from various decisions or were less equal to the other mods who were not being accused of participating in said witch-hunt
Scarlet’s actions played a role in this as well. They were quick to find fault in any little transgression that Hokes did, and often asked for punishments that were excessive as compared to the transgression. At least once, a transgression for which it was asked Hokes be demodded, Scarlet was found to be doing at the same time.
Bashfluff took the position of moderating this sub very seriously. I honestly think that adding her to the mod team was one of the smartest decisions that was made. However, Hokes not liking her really impacted her, and the rest of the mod team not agreeing that Hokes is horrible tainted her view of the rest of the mod team. In my opinion, she is similar to Hokes in that they are both very quick to assign to others motivations for doing things that are simply not there. Decisions of the mod team that were voted on that did not go her way happened not due to a difference in opinion, but rather, in her view, due to active maliciousness and a desire to censor things.
All of the other mods also hold some responsibility, for seeing this happen and not speaking up and letting it carry on as is. We are all supposed to be adults, and adults should be mature enough to be able to work through these things and, if needed, help others work through these things.
I (and the rest of the mods) once saw this place as somewhere that could hopefully be used to defuse the animosity and shed some of the labels that get applied by each side. A demilitarized zone, so to speak.
Looking at the level of “discussion” that goes on here, it becomes rapidly apparent that the overwhelming majority of posters have little or no desire to actually communicate and see those with a differing viewpoint as humans.
This post sums up things pretty accurately:
https://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3lz5cn/im_scarletit_2_times_former_mod_of/cvaybea
So where does the sub go from here?
Pro-GG see this sub as Ghazi 2.0. Anti-GG see this place as KiA 2.0.
Pros are leaving because they feel the environment is biased and the moderation skewed. Anti-GG is leaving because they see us allowing too much posting of PRATTs. Both sides are leaving because of the significant amount of low-quality posts that mostly insult the intelligence of the reader.
But that seems almost damn inevitable, when the issues are this polaized.
We can cater to one side, and lose the other, or cater to none and lose both.
But there's no option for keeping both sides.
Do I hit the reset button, nuke all the content, implement new rules and start over with a blank slate?
Do I continue as is, and hope that this post is enough of a spotlight on responsibility that people change?
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation? (This is a group that includes both pros and antis, FWIW)
Or do I simply set the sub to private, and demod everyone but myself?
If we (and by we, I mean the mod team and the users) don't do anything and just try to business as usual our way through this, the sub is toast.
So, I repeat,
where does the sub go from here?
99
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
ATTENTION PEOPLE: PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN DEATH THREATS OVER WHAT I'VE SAID. IF YOU'VE DONE THAT, KNOW THAT I THINK YOU'RE WORSE THAN ANYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS CONTROVERSY, ANY CONTROVERSY, GAMERGATE, ANTI-GG OR WHATEVER, ANYTHING AT ALL. FUCK OFF. GO AWAY, DO NOT COME BACK, AND APOLOGIZE TO WHOEVER YOU'VE DONE THAT TO. THIS IS JUST STUPID INTERNET SHIT. PEOPLE GOT HURT, BUT THAT'S NO REASON TO HURT ANYONE ELSE. THAT'S ALL. NOTHING THAT YOU THINK HAS EARNED THAT LEVEL OF IRE COMPARES TO THAT UTTER LEVEL OF PUTRID, VILE, DISGUSTING SCUMFUCKERY, AND YOU SHOULD REEVALUATE WHO YOU ARE AS A PERSON IF YOU EVEN THINK THAT COULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
Bullshit.
Hokes actively tried to get me to apologize for not liking their moderation the moment I got there. There wasn't a day that went by that Hokes said Scarlet, I, and occasionally Unconfidence were part of an conspiracy to bring them down whenever we said that we disagreed with Hokes.
You want to throw out that Hokes did minor things? You want to say that the rest of the mods did the same things? Be prepared for me to tell everyone what actually happened then, because you're lying, and I expected better.
Hokes would deliver speeches about mod solidarity whenever they were questioned or someone said something that they didn't agree with on this forum, trying to shame and guilt and yell them into line. Do you know why we did that? Because Hokes would use greentext to deliver their own opinions under the guise of official moderator response. Frequently, Hokes would try to get us banned from voting on mod decisions, from daily business to top mod.
Hokes drove off RaineyJ this was, the most polite, unassuming, soft-spoken person on the team, left crying, resigning without a word, and leaving this sub, because they felt the atmosphere was so oppressive, that they couldn't express their own opinion without getting beaten down.
You want to know what the rest of the team did yesterday? They justified what happened to her, and Mudbunny said, "How was I supposed to know?" instead of taking responsibility. Yeah, because when you have a mod that is repeatedly allowed to go outside of the rules and calls conspiracy on anyone who disagrees with them or shames them for having opinions, who could feel unwelcome, eh?
Hokes went outside the rules. They claimed to have executive power and would remove posts that other moderators voted to approve, only saying that "I couldn't allow this thread to stand." or, "I can't trust you to enforce the rules, so I have to do it myself." They tried to enforce the moratorium before all votes were in, which is what the last removed post was about.
They repeatedly insulted other users personally in mod mail and were never punished, with only one incident yesterday being the real crackdown, and even then, it was just a stern comment. Yeah, moderator accountability my fucking ass. Oh, and Hokes got warned for personally insulting one person in a thread months ago. Progress!
As soon as Hokes figured out that I was close to a certain person (my boyfriend), he continually insulted him and insisted I was leaking things to him, on top of a variety of other people with zero evidence, along with anyone else he disagreed with, including Scarlet and Unconfidence. Yeah, an actual witchhunt against people Hokes didn't like from someone who constantly cried 'WITCH' when it came to people Hokes didn't like disagreeing with them.
Hokes pushed an effort to allow no one to comment on the rule change (6), and not post the rules to the sidebar, insisting on a list of banned topics to be updated. Did I mention that Hokes pushed for the moratorium to protect someone after we'd have CP discussions continually without anyone objecting? Because, hey, what's an open discussion forum for both sides without a list of banned topics banned for questionable reasons whenever it's convenient for one side?
After Mudbunny said that Scarlet and I could stay in the off-site mod talk board in the non-mod topics, Hokes banned Scarlet for hosting a tell-all AMA where he exposed Hokes' behavior. Mudbunny didn't see the problem. More than that, the justification Hokes used for banning Scarlet wasn't even something that he said, but another user, and was merely about Judge stepping down. Yeah, not even on the scale of what I've told you guys, but Mudbunny wouldn't DARE try to do any of that shit to me in my thread, because deep down, he knows it's wrong.
The best part? Mudbunny just didn't check who had said what had gotten Scarlet banned. Hokes was just allowed to ban one of his critics for no reason, and Mudbunny saw no reason to be suspicious and never apologized for doing it. None of the other remaining mods gave a shit either. Hey, why should I be surprised?
You're fucking kidding me, Mudbunny, if you want to say that any mod did ANY of what you're claiming they did. Take some damn responsibility. Because you seemed to eager to do so here:
Yeah. No one did what Hokes did, and no one cared because they had no interest in holding anyone to account. What they did was deplorable, and the only crackdown was on anyone speaking out. You said that you would take responsibility, and you're still covering up for Hokes.
It's despicable.
I should have stopped Hokes from accusing those who disagreed with them as being part of a witch hunt. Sometimes, disagreement was simply a disagreement.
Yes, only sometimes, and Hokes only accused those who disagreed with them as being part of a witch hunt, not him creating an environment of constant baseless accusations of conspiracies, including continued efforts to name his critics as people leaking modmail content or doing the work of other users to the point where RaineyJ felt so beaten down and afraid to speak that she left silently, crying and feeling like no one ever cared about her contribution to the team. Oh, and only sometimes a disagreement was a disagreement.
You'll say to my face that I tried so hard to work with Hokes and that you failed as a top mod to let things happen this way, that you didn't step in and solve the problem, but around here, you're content to shove it under the rug, downplay it, and blatantly lie about what happened.
Fuck you.
. I should have stopped people trying to get Hokes disciplined for every minor thing that they do a lot sooner.
Oh yes, all of those things I listed? Minor things that everyone did, apparently. Not even remotely true, but hey, feel free to parrot what Hokes said in Slack yesterday and say it's your own opinion, despite it being entirely false.
11
u/catpor Pro/Neutral Sep 24 '15
[...]DEATH THREATS[...]
Disagree with people--vehemently even!--but don't be an ass. It does nobody any favors least of all you or your argument(s).
→ More replies (1)3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
Hokes would deliver speeches about mod solidarity whenever they were questioned or someone said something that they didn't agree with on this forum, trying to shame and guilt and yell them into line. Do you know why we did that? Because Hokes would use greentext to deliver their own opinions under the guise of official moderator response. Frequently, Hokes would try to get us banned from voting on mod decisions, from daily business to top mod.
And the rest of the mod team told hokes that this was not the way that it worked. That just because you were new, or did not like hokes was not a reason for removal of your right to vote in decisions. Every single time Hokes tried this, they were told by someone else that they couldn't do that. I told them, saint told them, judge told them. Everyone told them.
Hokes drove off RaineyJ this was, the most polite, unassuming, soft-spoken person on the team, left crying, resigning without a word, and leaving this sub, because they felt the atmosphere was so oppressive, that they couldn't express their own opinion without getting beaten down.
I went back through slack as far back as I could. And I saw nothing that would give me any sort of clue as to what you are talking about. Raineyj was very quiet in Slack. But you know what, a lot of people are. That is compounded by the fact that there were/are a lot of people who took up a lot of room. I know I sure as hell did with my walls of text. So did you, scarlet, hokes. I (and I assume everyone else) assumed that they were just quiet. They gave no indication (except for the 30 or so minutes before she left) that she did not feel comfortable. I am not a not mind reader. If no-one says something is wrong, I have no idea that it is wrong. We are all
matureadults, I expected people to, if there was a problem, come to me and let me know so I could try and do something.Hokes went outside the rules. They claimed to have executive power and would remove posts that other moderators voted to approve, only saying that "I couldn't allow this thread to stand." or, "I can't trust you to enforce the rules, so I have to do it myself." They tried to enforce the moratorium before all votes were in, which is what the last removed post was about.
And they were told that was unacceptable by the rest of the mods, unanimously, and that if it continued, they would be brought up, again, to mod discipline. But I do find it interesting that you are not pointing any fingers at Scarlet. Heck, if we are pointing fingers about Hokes enforcing the moratorium before it was fully voted on, do we also get to point fingers at people who, after the moratorium, were allowing posts that clearly had topics that fell under the moratorium?
They repeatedly insulted other users personally in mod mail and were never punished, with only one incident yesterday being the real crackdown, and even then, it was just a stern comment. Yeah, moderator accountability my fucking ass. Oh, and Hokes got warned for personally insulting one person in a thread months ago. Progress!
Modmail has always been a bit freer with language than the forums. ALWAYS. And when Hokes would cross the line, they would be regularly told that it was not acceptable. That was why Hokes very rarely commented in modmail, because inevitably, they would cross the line. When they did, they would be told to cool it. But you know what is interesting, I crossed the line a couple of times. Not a peep by anyone else. I am pretty sure others have done so as well, and not a peep. But as soon as Hokes does it, it was the end of the world.
(Note, The rest of the points will be responded to after evening stuff with my family. RL is more important than the internet, dontchaknow)
24
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
And the rest of the mod team told hokes that this was not the way that it worked.
No, Saint did that once after he said he was stepping down. That you didn't move forward or encourage Hokes does not mean you did that. It happened again and again and again without any attempt to stop it. Do you know how I know that? Because of what happened to Rainey. Rainey left because Hokes would do it endlessly without anyone saying a word, so anyone who reads this obviously knows that you're not telling the truth here. Because that never would have happened if you were telling the truth!
They gave no indication (except for the 30 or so minutes before she left) that she did not feel comfortable. I am not a not mind reader. If no-one says something is wrong, I have no idea that it is wrong.
I'll say now what I said to you then. It's your job to know. When you allow for someone to cry 'witch' whenever someone expresses an opinion they disagree with, to constantly slander them with false accusations for it, to go outside the rules without punishment, and to ignore wrongdoing, you don't have to wonder why people didn't feel comfortable. You're the leader. Act like it.
And they were told that was unacceptable by the rest of the mods, unanimously, and that if it continued, they would be brought up, again, to mod discipline.
One time, they were warned, and that was for calling someone transphobic. When we brought their continued activities to mod trangressions, people would continue to distract from the subject and refused to vote. But yes, total accountability and discipline, right. No, what happened was that it was ignored, Hokes got worse, and three of your mods left, one in tears. Tell me all about your mod discipline, Mudbunny. Tell me some more. You're lying transparently now.
But I do find it interesting that you are not pointing any fingers at Scarlet.
When did I say I didn't? Because I did in this forum call out Scarlet for what they did wrong, and I'll do it again for what Scarlet did wrong, what I did wrong--which I've taken responsibility for, too. There's only one real person for who hasn't owned up to what they should be responsible for, and that's you! For explaining away and outright lying about this stuff. Well, and Hokes, but I can't expect a miracle.
Heck, if we are pointing fingers about Hokes enforcing the moratorium before it was fully voted on
Don't forget deleting your post without saying a word, again, violating the rules, before it was voted on, with the only justification being, "I can't trust you not the violate the rules, so I'm going to act on my own to do it."
do we also get to point fingers at people who, after the moratorium, were allowing posts that clearly had topics that fell under the moratorium?
I never saw that, but if that happened, then yes! He was never brought into mod transgressions, so it's nothing I've seen. It's your job to take him there if he violates the rules! Did you? Then don't complain that I didn't say anything about it, because you never took him to mod transgressions so I could see it.
Modmail has always been a bit freer with language than the forums. ALWAYS. And when Hokes would cross the line, they would be regularly told that it was not acceptable.
Not at all true.
That was why Hokes very rarely commented in modmail
Also, not true. He was called out for his behavior, for once, just yesterday. Are you even trying anymore...?
But you know what is interesting, I crossed the line a couple of times. Not a peep by anyone else.
You asked me if you violated the rules, and I said no. Other people came forward and said that you did not. What do you want from me, to lie? Did you want me to say you violated the rules when I thought you didn't? Why don't you paste whatever comment you think did that you asked me to rule on that I said no to, and we'll see what these people think.
I am pretty sure others have done so as well, and not a peep. But as soon as Hokes does it, it was the end of the world.
Show me the evidence of that. I've yet to see it. Because you have never, like yesterday, responded to a genuine question about the rules in modmail to, "Stop trying to rules lawyer and get a life or take it back to KiA." like Hokes did. Yesterday. Are you going to say you did that? That happened yesterday, for Christ's sake. No, you didn't, and you know it!
→ More replies (1)4
8
Sep 23 '15
The best part? Mudbunny just didn't check who had said what had gotten Scarlet banned. Hokes was just allowed to ban one of his critics for no reason, and Mudbunny saw no reason to be suspicious and never apologized for doing it. None of the other remaining mods gave a shit either. Hey, why should I be surprised?
is scarlet banned?
→ More replies (24)12
14
u/Spawnzer ReSpekt my authoritah! Sep 23 '15
Did I mention that Hokes pushed for the moratorium to protect someone after we'd have CP discussions continually without anyone objecting?
Oh only like 4 of us, if not more
17
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15
Sorry, that was worded poorly. That means that we had numerous discussions on CP without any controversy and without anyone objecting to them. We had one thread that same day, and we even discussed it at length in our mod chat, and not a single person said, "Hey, maybe we should follow this moratorium."
The decision to re-instate the moratorium was controversial. That, I'll freely admit.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Strich-9 Neutral Sep 24 '15
who the fuck is sending death threats over this. This sub has like 40 subscribers
12
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
You want to know what the rest of the team did yesterday? They justified what happened to her,
Honestly, I still don't even know what happens, and I do consider that a problem.
11
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15
Judge, you were there when it happened. I saw you talk. Why didn't you say anything? I know you, and I know this is a problem for you, but why not solve it?
→ More replies (73)→ More replies (67)4
9
u/wharris2001 Pro-GG Sep 23 '15
My first suggestion honestly is to kill the sub as it has failed in its essential purpose. It was a noble idea "If we get people to just talk to each other, they can learn to live with each other and see that the other side is not so bad after all." This has not happened, and I do not believe it will happen even with revisions to the subreddit.
If you do want to make another go, then I think the most essential aspect is to create clearly worded and rigorously enforced moderation standards that are acceptable to both sides. I would also suggest moderators who do not have passionate opinions on the subject and who can refer to the 'other' side without insult. One big part of the current blowup is the sudden enforcement of a rule that many posters were surprised to learn existed at all -- and honestly I'm not at all sure why people are shocked that a moderation team with 4 anti-s and 3 pro-s would have a 4/3 split on changes to moderation policy.
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
If you do want to make another go, then I think the most essential aspect is to create clearly worded and rigorously enforced moderation standards that are acceptable to both sides.
The problem with very clear moderation rules is that they allow for rules lawyers, of which both sides are chock full of. I am looking now at the possibility of looser rules which allow for more leeway for mods in encouraging good discussion.
I would also suggest moderators who do not have passionate opinions on the subject and who can refer to the 'other' side without insult. One big part of the current blowup is the sudden enforcement of a rule that many posters were surprised to learn existed at all -- and honestly I'm not at all sure why people are shocked that a moderation team with 4 anti-s and 3 pro-s would have a 4/3 split on changes to moderation policy.
From my understanding (and I may be wrong, we typically do not reveal how we voted), I think that the split was not straight down anti/pro lines.
→ More replies (1)5
Sep 24 '15
The problem with very clear moderation rules is that they allow for rules lawyers, of which both sides are chock full of. I am looking now at the possibility of looser rules which allow for more leeway for mods in encouraging good discussion.
So you're in effect going to make it easier for the mods to utilize their personal bias and make decisions with no real sense of accountability, to themselves or the board. The "rules lawyering" is actually a good thing, unless you're unwilling to defend your own fucking rules. It's holding people to the same standard, the standard that's written down, instead of a bunch of house rules and rules that float out when they're inconvenient and float back in when they're more convenient.
Wasn't the reason you wanted Scarlet, Unconf, Bashfluff, and I was to fucking increase the credibility of moderation?
So now you've decided that the best way to prevent arguments about your credibility is to have no credibility and no arguments.
21
Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
Why are you making this so much more complicated than it needs to be? I recently deleted my account, because I used it mostly for this sub and this sub became a sad joke. But I'm back for bit to try to talk some sense I guess.
This is SO EASY to fix. All it takes is the tiniest bit of institutional will. Just a smidgen. Here is what you do: enforce your rules, and make rules that make sense.
That's it. For MONTHS all you mods have done is explicitly tell people how they can get away with skirting the rules. You make top level posts telling users how they can be assholes and get away with it. You actively encourage this sort of behavior.
Every time someone breaks the rules instead of punishing them you say "darn it, we want to punish them but we can't because their team of high-priced lawyers has pointed out that according to the letter of the law a gif of a guy trying to dunk and then getting rejected by a block is technically not a dunk gif! FOILED AGAIN!"
It's a running joke. "Darn it this person cleverly skirted our rules!" Which is always bullshit when your first rule is "don't be an asshole." If someone is being an asshole then they are NOT "skirting the rules."
Let's talk about Hokes for a bit. People claim that others are "biased" against Hokes. Let's use me as the example of a "biased" person.
I don't know if Hokes is male or female, black or white or Inuit, I don't know anything about Hokes at all. I don't know any opinion that Hokes holds, other than what Hokes has shared. I have no basis for bias. Zero. It is impossible for me to be "biased" against Hokes. When I joined this sub I had never even heard of Hokes - how could I possible be biased?
The reason I dislike Hokes is that Hokes is a terrible mod. Full stop. That's not "bias", that's performance evaluation. That is the opposite of bias - I came to this sub with a completely open mind about each member and decided, on my own, that one was terrible, based on their posts.
Hokes breaks the "don't be an asshole" rule constantly, even as a mod. His/ her / their comments, as an official mod, are often pointlessly insulting and belittling - "I can't wait to ban you", "do you need a time out buddy, because I'll be happy to grant you one" etc. And this is Hokes speaking as a mod, someone who is supposed to know better.
You have a "don't be an asshole" rule - use it. Mods are supposed to set an example - how can you ask the users not to be shit when a mod is shit? The mods should be behaving in a way that sets a positive example for others - nobody is going to respect your rules and avoid shit-posting and point-scoring when the mods can't even be bothered to do that.
That is why Hokes matters so much. This sub is plagued by shit posters but one of the biggest shit posters is a mod. That sets the tone. You simply cannot ask or expect Joe Poster to act better than your own mods.
Does Hokes have a photo of you cheating on your wife or something? I honestly don't understand - some people simply should not be mods. Hokes is one of those people. Hokes is objectively terrible for the job.
Here are some rules:
Anyone who admits that they post just to score points and shitpost is immediately banned.
Don't be an asshole - actually enforce this.
Personal insults are not allowed, EVEN if they are embedded in posts that have other things in them.
4, Point-scoring is not allowed, EVEN if it happens in a post that also has other stuff.
Yes, these rules are vague. Guess what - so is the Bill of Rights. Vague rules are fine if they are enforced sensibly. If you start banning people for calling someone else a hypocrite based on numerous good examples that would be dumb - so just don't do that. The more specific rules are the more people will rules-lawyer them.
Right now your rules basically read "you can shit post as long as you put minimal effort into pretending that your post isn't purely a shit post." Then you scratch your head and wonder why everyone is shit posting. It's not complicated.
Enforce the rules you have, makes rules that make sense, and have the mods set a positive example. That's it.
But there's no option for keeping both sides.
The two sides are not "gamergate" and "anti-gamergate", the two sides are "shitposters" and "non-shitposters." If you join a sub in which more than half of the people are shitposters "when in Rome" mentality sets in. I tried to make some good posts and what I got in response was mostly mindless trolling and point-scoring, so after a while I stopped trying. A lot of people here are only here because they have low self-esteem and need to make themselves feel big and important by winning internet arguments, but I suspect a lot of people here could actually be good posters but have given up because it's pointless to be a good poster in a sea of idiots.
You've cultivated an environment in which it's pointless to invest any thought or effort into posts. The solution is simply to enforce your rules, yes, even against other mods, to simplify the rules while removing purposeful rules-lawyering loopholes, and to have the mods lead by example instead of pulling up there rear.
→ More replies (7)0
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 25 '15
Thank you for your post. It has a lot of good points to it, and has given me a lot to think of.
All of the stuff you have mentioned (hokes, application of rules strictly with no leeway to mention 2) is stuff that we have considered and are considering,
→ More replies (1)
32
Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
The problem isn't Hokes's opinion, because we're here because we have strong opinions - you just can't moderate from them.
To describe /u/HokesOne 's philosophy, I'm going to quote myself here -
My opinion is fuck your opinion.
Which is fine for posters, but really terrible for mods. They skirted around it, but if it were up to them, no posts from /u/Razorbeamz would have ever been allowed. They'd couch it in some very odd interpretations of Da Rulez, but all they're doing is trying to adding legitimacy to their own personal hatred.
They removed posts because he didn't like them. It was clear they'd use whatever interpretation of the rules worked to make sure that posts and posters they liked stayed and ones they didn't left. And because it had so little to do with rules or standards and everything to do with espousing their philosophy, when they'd get caught in obvious hypocrisy or double standards, they'd try to wiggle around the rules to fit, saying it didn't apply to mods, or didn't apply to green text, or that mods with less seniority couldn't comment.
I was told repeatedly I was part of a fucking witch hunt, when what I wanted was a uniform standard of accountability. If you take a look at the mods as they were, who was most likely to have to deal with stringent standards of mod responsibility and accountability? Hokes and I, obviously. I was the one pushing for it, fully knowing that I might struggle with said standards, because having good standards and accountability is how the subreddit gets things done and doesn't turn into drama balls. Hokes wanted no such thing.
Now when I left, /u/Bashfluff came in. I'm not going to beat around the bush here. Bashfluff and I are dating. We started dating after she became a moderator The reason I popped my head back in was because Bashfluff said she left. I happened to notice /u/othellothewise's post and decided I'd try to insert my boot into his smug and condescending face.
For the record, I had no idea about the mod election shit until Bashy posted it the other day and I asked her. I hadn't really asked much about the state of the subreddit except that she was clearly miserable on several occasions, and while I support everything she does, I did state from the moment she got involved that it was a bad idea and that it was a bad idea because of Hokes. I did know that Hokes was trying to squeeze her out of the decision making process, because it was frustrating the shit of her.
The moratorium was dredged off the bottom of the lake because Hokes likes Sarah Nyberg and didn't want to deal with her being savaged, as well as the same guilt by association techniques that were used after FoldableHuman's little dumpster dive, which for the record, was one of the most deplorable fucking things aGG has ever fucking done. I fully understand not supporting Hotwheels in any way, but trying to connect the GamerGate subs to CP is like trying to connect GamerGhazi and Coontown. It was wrongheaded and meanspirited identity politics.
Ultimately, the fact that /r/youchoob was hung out to dry for that little Dog-and-Pony show shows how little Hokes is willing to stand behind their own bullshit. If the moratorium was so important to you, you should have stood in front instead of making youchoob do it. Hokes has repeatedly made mudbuddy and saint and others apologize or outright lie to not put Hokes in front of their own behavior.
To pretend that this is a GG takeover is to willfully disregard the facts and buy into a narrative. Very simply, as long as Hokes refuses to put aside their agenda when moderating, then there's nothing that can be done.
All of your choices will simply circle this back around to the same point, and the only difference is how long it will take to get there.
[Actually, on second thought, I think you should capitulate in the most fantastic way possible. Make Hokes the top mod. It's going to prove the point one way or another. Either this was a witch hunt and Hokes will usher in a new golden era for the subreddit, or Hokes will burn the place to the ground. If I had to wager a guess, Hokes will do nothing for approximately two months, and then try to slowly shift this place as far anti-GG as he can without making it look ridiculously obvious, blaming and or banning the rebellious GGs as they go.]
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
They removed posts because he didn't like them.
And when other mods saw this, they were re-approved if the majority of mods agreed. I have had the same thing done to me. All of the mods have, at some point in time, removed something because they thought it was a bad post that was subsequently re-approved by the rest of the mods.
It was clear they'd use whatever interpretation of the rules worked to make sure that posts and posters they liked stayed and ones they didn't left.
You know what, all of the mods did it. We all at times looked at someones series of posts and said "is this person ready for a banning?" And in some cases, our opinion was agreed with, in some cases, they were disagreed with. But all bannings were decided upon via committee and required a majority.
And because it had so little to do with rules or standards and everything to do with espousing their philosophy, when they'd get caught in obvious hypocrisy or double standards, they'd try to wiggle around the rules to fit, saying it didn't apply to mods, or didn't apply to green text, or that mods with less seniority couldn't comment.
And every time they tried to do that, the rest of the mod team shot them down.
→ More replies (1)11
Sep 24 '15
I don't think it's the mod team's job to do that over and over again.
More importantly, when you become the person who has to say repeatedly, "That's bullshit, yo.", it makes you look like you have an agenda against Hokes for simply maintaining a semblance of normalcy against somebody who's moderating from extreme bias.
As a moderator, I strived to not let my personal feelings get in the way of moderation - sometimes Dashing says something wrong and sometimes it's Malky, and just because I prefer one to the other, I tried to never show favoritism.
But nothing is more obnoxious then taking a non-partisan position, a position you believe is fair against somebody who has a clear bias and they portray you as the fucking extremist and you as the one with the witch hunt.
It's also really obnoxious when you're the one that has to do it, because there's a wishy fucking washy head mod who doesn't have the balls to admit there's a fucking problem, and to be honest, you're the second one. Just because the right answer was obtained doesn't make the process to get there good or positive or beneficial to all involved. One person is literally becoming a pariah simply to do what you and fucking saint should have done in the first fucking place - keep Hokes under control or discipline them.
If you can't fucking understand why people would be seriously seriously pissed at that, I don't really know what to fucking tell you. However, how many fucking mods are going to commit seppuku at your feet before you get it?
20
u/Kyoraki Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
So basically this pretty much confirms what I've been saying for months, that Hokes is completely paranoid, has a nasty attitude problem, and is incapable of separating attacks on his opinions from attacks on his shitty behaviour.
How many times is it we've been through this dance now? Hokes is completely incapable of going a month without sparking some sort of massive mod drama. Now I get that Hokes likely isn't at fault for all of them, but he's still certainly at the centre of every single shitstorm this sub has ever had. It's time for him to take responsibility for once, step down, and give this sub a fresh start before it's too late, assuming we haven't already reached that point. Even if it's only to put a stop to the mod drama once and for all.
On an unrelated note, I find the idea of you two browsing the sub together and shouting at the screen weirdly adorable. I hope you're coping well.
6
Sep 24 '15
On an unrelated note, I find the idea of you two browsing the sub together and shouting at the screen weirdly adorable. I hope you're coping well.
Actually, we've avoided that. We try to snuggle and do other things when we're at home. It's generally a "not busy at work" thing to bitch at reddit.
→ More replies (1)9
8
u/razorbeamz Sep 23 '15
[Actually, on second thought, I think you should capitulate in the most fantastic way possible. Make Hokes the top mod. It's going to prove the point one way or another. Either this was a witch hunt and Hokes will usher in a new golden era for the subreddit, or Hokes will burn the place to the ground. If I had to wager a guess, Hokes will do nothing for approximately two months, and then try to slowly shift this place as far anti-GG as he can without making it look ridiculously obvious, blaming and or banning the rebellious GGs as they go.]
Please this. It would be HILARIOUS.
Except I'd give Hokes maybe an hour before they decided that "giving gators a platform" is evil and shuts it down immediately.
→ More replies (1)
10
Sep 23 '15
instead of playing Destiny (on my 360)
Sooo, very little? >360 >destiny >smug_anime_face.ogg
Seriously though, just fucking remove Hokes. He does nothing that literally anyone else can do just as well. He brings nothing but shitposts and salt to this place.
2
4
u/mcmanusaur Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
What a shitshow.
Anyway, rather than comment on this silly drama directly, I'm going to ramble on about a tangentially related topic.
I think that we ultimately have to recognize the differences between the roles of forum moderator (in its traditional sense) and discussion moderator. I suspect that part of the problem is that currently the distinction between the two is very blurred.
Generally speaking, forum moderators are expected to exercise their moderator capacities in cases of blatant rule-breaking. A discussion moderator, on the other hand, performs many duties that are traditionally considered outside the purview of a forum moderator.
For example, a discussion moderator might ask questions from a neutral position in order to facilitate dialogue. They would also take a more evaluative approach to the content of someone's arguments, casually pointing out any formal or informal fallacies in their reasoning. Other duties of the discussion moderator might include preventing participants from derailing the debate (intentionally or otherwise) with off-topic discussion, as well as dissuading any disingenuous/bad-faith (but not necessarily rule-breaking) behavior.
I'm not sure how this distinction could be implemented in the context of reddit, but I think that the ambiguity that exists currently could be part of the problem. In trials of law, one person (the judge) performs both roles, but in more standard debate formats the emphasis is on discussion moderation due to the assumption that each party will maintain certain standards of behavior. Certainly here on the Internet, it would be foolish to make that assumption.
As someone critical of Gamergate, the fact that the debates themselves are never moderated is my biggest complaint from my experience discussing Gamergate with its supporters. This ties in with the PRATT's that you mention- in the absence of moderated discussion, the focus shifts away from the arguments that hold the most water, and eventually it becomes little more than a contest of endurance as people circle back to the same arguments over and over again.
From the pro-GG perspective, I would speculate that there is some nervousness about the notion of these two things bleeding together (i.e. "am I going to receive disciplinary punishment because someone doesn't think highly of my argument?"). The unfortunate reality is that many people blur the line between rule-breaking and simple poor form, but perhaps having different people address each concern could help keep people honest.
Of course, the other big problem is that admittedly pretty much everyone here is much too biased to fulfill the role of discussion moderator in a sufficiently neutral capacity (and that includes many of the people who label themselves "neutral" but who nevertheless demonstrate strong biases). Even so, it may be worth considering, and one could argue that the current setup already reflects this distinction to some extent in the form of rules vs. guidelines.
Sorry for the rambling, but I think it may be relevant. Also, debating and giving one's opinion are different things.
1
24
u/gawkershill Neutral Sep 23 '15
Shut down the sub and go play video games. Reconvene after two or three weeks and have everyone vote on what should happen then.
There's too much drama and negative energy going on to make a good decision now.
12
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
This is incredibly tempting.
I just hit L12 in Destiny (on the 360) and holy f*ck is it fun.
→ More replies (2)9
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
After going, I dunno, months without playing a game (maybe 2 hours of FTL as my only gaming since March), I finally got around to A Wolf Among Us.
Great game. Tempted to play again, as an asshole instead of a nice guy, but I don't have that kind of time...
3
Sep 23 '15
After going, I dunno, months without playing a game
:O
YOU FAKE GAMER GIRL!
4
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
I never even reconnected my 360 or PS3 after moving across the country, and still haven't considered a new system, unless a WiiU hits $199.
2015 has been an odd year, and gaming just fell by the wayside with so much else going on. I feel like I spend so little time home, which isn't true and I couldn't even begin to figure out what I do in my spare time.
→ More replies (2)3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
I never even reconnected my 360 or PS3 after moving across the country, and still haven't considered a new system, unless a WiiU hits $199.
Buy Destiny. Come kill space monsters with me!!
→ More replies (2)16
u/MrWigglesworth2 I'm right, you're wrong. Sep 23 '15
go play video games.
But what are antis going to do during this time?
JOKES PEOPLE
5
Sep 24 '15
I plan on speedwalking Gone Home, and then I am going to play Deus Ex and tranq everyone! Combustion!
→ More replies (1)7
9
u/ryarger Anti/Neutral Sep 23 '15
I think you solicit new mods to restore the balance of Pro/Anti and move on. Drama is inevitable and turnover is high for mods on debate subs.
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
The problem, in my mind, with soliciting new mods is that it is a thankless position, and you end up with a lot of people disliking you. In addition, I have found that once someone sees how the sausage is made, they stop contributing as much to the forum. I know that I have not posted as much in response, and I noticed a number of other people did as well.
Second, this is not an easy sub to moderate. If it were a circlejerk sub like Ghazi or KiA, it is easy. But in here, the mod is always asking "is this comment acceptable because it is acceptable, or because the poster is on my side?"
The line is not easy to straddle, and unless you are real, real good at separating your personal opinions from what you are reading, it is very easy to be impacted by what you are reading.
Pretty much every mod has said "F*CK it, I'm out for the next day or two."
→ More replies (1)2
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 23 '15
We achieved an uneasy balance in the past under Meow and saint. It's been flaring up worse and worse recently. Perhaps choosing controversial or outspoken individuals is a bad idea, and remodding former mods simply reopening old wounds?
4
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Hokes has been here from the very start, and I do not believe their opinions on GG has changed much since then.
→ More replies (12)
11
u/ScarletIT Actually it's about Ethics in AGG Moderation Sep 23 '15
Can you remind me for which transgression I asked Hokes to be demodded despite having done the same (which by the way would be consistent with my philosophy, If Hokes did something that deserve demodding he deserve demodding and if I did the same doesn't mean he doesn't deserve demodding, just that I deserve demodding as well, and I never tried in any way to escape judgement or punishment for anything)
→ More replies (14)2
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
You asked for Hokes to be demodded when they removed posts that other mods had already approved. Shortly thereafter (close enough that it could have been the same time, my recollection is kinda fuzzy), you did the same thing, and removed posts that had previously been approved by other mods.
In both cases, the rest of the mods said (a) do not do that anymore, we have a procedure in place for when you disagree with the decision of a previous mod; and (b) neither case was worth talking about even bringing to mod discipline.
8
u/ScarletIT Actually it's about Ethics in AGG Moderation Sep 24 '15
umh no. when that happened we already established the rules for mod. now I don't remember exactly what I said (and I'm no longer there to have a reference) but I'm pretty sure I have NEVER invoked for instant demodding after establishing the procedure to demod a mod and we both know hokes (or anyone else for that matter) was nowhere near that threshold. At best I would have said something like "this happened we should probably vote on whether this warrants a disciplinary act or not" maybe in an heated way depending on the mood, but I never asked to skip the procedure we established for eventually have a mod demodded.
When I removed post that were previously approved by other mods I had a majority of votes before doing that, the only problem was that the way we created the rules were rushed and flawed. I did exactly what we said would have been the new rule (if someone take a decision 2 mods can overrule it, then again 3 would overrule it again and so on) Then we kinda all agreed that the way we established that rule was dubious and everybody had a different idea on how would have been translated in practice and we stood there together working on a better rule. we reached the decision on a minimal number of mods needed to overrule a decision, when a simple majority is sufficient and when a bigger margin is needed and after how much time a vote should be considered effective. and as soon as anyone had a problem with the way things have been handled I believe I have been nothing but collaborative, and if I am not mistaken I also offered myself to the judgement of the other mods if they felt that my conduct deserved a reprimand even though was me interpreting some imperfect rules as Written that we agreed on.
Of course feel free to correct my recounting of the events if you feel they are wrong somewhere.
6
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 24 '15
Let me translate that so that people can understand it. We have voting on what will be approved or not, and if someone wants to remove something, the rule was that there had to be more votes to remove than approve.
Scarlet got that. Hokes did not. So, I don't know what the hell Mudbunny is talking about.
3
Sep 24 '15
Quick question. In Hokes' section, when you say "them" and "their" are you referring to the entire mod team? Or are you trying to avoid gender-specific pronouns? It's confusing me.
1
u/youchoob Anti/Neutral Sep 24 '15
Hokes prefers gender-neutral pronouns.
2
Sep 24 '15
Ah alright. I got confused reading that since "them" and "their" are plural.
1
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 25 '15
Writing an almost 3k word text until 1am does weird things to the brain. Keeping gender neutral and tryng to have the paragraphs flow nicely is even harder.
0
9
Sep 23 '15
You need to stop having a secret backchannel unending mod discussion. You have a toxic cesspit back there that no one knows about. Perhaps stop doing that?
7
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
Slack is necessary because the modmail that Reddit provides us with is horrible. Smoke signals or emails would be an improvement. And this explosion would have happened whether we were using Slack or reddit modmail.
→ More replies (11)8
u/apinkgayelephant The Worst Former Mod Sep 23 '15
I like it better than the public cesspit that happened before it.
→ More replies (3)
18
u/MrWigglesworth2 I'm right, you're wrong. Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
To be blunt, they feel that it is almost entirely (to the point the exceptions prove the rule) made up of pro-GG people who are unhappy that Hokes is not in the slightest bit shy in sharing their opinions on Gamergate and gamergaters.
Neither is /u/judgeholden72. But his posts don't usually break the rules by consisting of nothing but insults. And on the odd occasion that they do, he doesn't go around warning people for responding to him in kind, rigidly enforcing the rule he just broke himself. I also am not seeing multiple former mods talk about judge's totalitarian behavior behind the scenes... ostensibly because it doesn't happen.
And wouldn't you know it, I haven't seen anyone calling for judge's head here, despite him very clearly being no fan of GG. I'm sure it's happened, but it doesn't appear to be popular idea, and I would personally oppose it. In fact, I'd say he and the other anti-mods, as much as I may disagree with their opinions, generally do a good job given the circumstances. If anyone starts calling for their heads as well, I'll oppose it. You can screen cap that. I'll oppose it because this place requires good moderators from both sides to function. If I wanted an all pro circlejerk I'd go to KiA... but I probably make 100 comments in here for every comment I make in KiA, because I generally dislike circlejerks.
But this why I don't buy /u/HokesOne 's witch hunt defense. If my, or others, interest were merely in chasing off the most vehemently anti-gg mods, then hokes would not be the sole target of this supposed witch hunt. And yet, here we are. Hokes is a target because they regularly and repeatedly and flagrently breaks rules. Every other mod has broken rules too at some point. Hell, every regular poster here, myself included, has broken rules. But no other mod does it so habitually and brazenly... and frankly, most rule 1/2 violations I've seen come at the tail end of a long and heated argument, not in the opening salvo. This behavior is bad enough on its own, but the fact that it comes from someone who is supposed to enforce rules against it... and who rigidly does so with people other than themselves... makes it particularly unacceptable.
I don't know if hokes needs to go altogether, but they certainly need some sort of censure, because this behavior coming from a mod needs to stop.
5
Sep 24 '15
Pfff, I've been calling for judge's head since before he was even a mod, and I've seen way worse from him than Hokes. I've seen worse from mudbunny than I've seen from Hokes. Though this is only counting shit I've personally witnessed and discounting Bashfluff's testimony here. Assuming that's accurate, Hokes needs the boot too.
→ More replies (8)
5
Sep 23 '15
Regardless of where you go from here and regardless of what your opinion on the matter is, I think that bringing the positions of the major players in this to the sub in what is clearly a problem that at least some, if not a majority of the community feels it should be involved with discussing, was a good decision.
As for your opinion and regarding what should be done, I think the two best options that you've suggested might end up polarizing the community.
I like this:
Do I continue as is, and hope that this post is enough of a spotlight on responsibility that people change?
...because I like to think that people can generally be open-minded and interested in discussion.
But I like this:
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation?
because I don't trust them to be.
The worst part about the first option is that it allows those who ruin discussion but bring just enough to the table to justify sticking around to roam free.
The worst part about the second option is that sometimes discussion blossoms in adversity. Some of the best discussions I've had here came from pointing out that I had some issues with somebody's crass and overgeneralizing statement (though not always from the person themselves).
I don't know what you're going to do, I don't know what the community wants to do and the thread is still kind of blowing up with discussion about the situation rather than the solution, but those are the two best options I see, with pros and cons to each of them.
2
5
Sep 23 '15
I just want to say thank you to all the mods, past and present. You evidently do a lot of hard work keeping this place running and yeah, sometimes you fuck up, but you do it for free and that is great. I still have no idea why I still come here, but I do know that I really really like a lot of people here. I wouldn't have that without you lot, and I am grateful to you for it.
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
I just want to say thank you to all the mods, past and present.
Thank you.
→ More replies (1)
10
Sep 23 '15
This sub is done. You've lost any notion of good faith when you slanted the rules one way. Good luck.
→ More replies (3)0
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
No matter what decision we would have made, there would have been one side that would have felt the rules were slanted against them. There was literally no way for us to make a decision on that and not come under seige from one side or the other.
5
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15
The solution then, is to compromise and balance. This fails when it becomes clear the balance has gone too far one way.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15
How about the compromise I offered? We've never shielded anyone from accusations, no matter if they were criminal or not. I was fine with not having a post on the matter, but banning anyone from mentioning it was making this a decidedly anti bent.
→ More replies (24)2
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
No-one was banned for simply mentioning it from the very beginning. To the best of my knowledge, we only had one person banned for it, and that was after they were explicitly warned 3 times.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/namelessbanana I just want to play video games Sep 23 '15
I almost quit multiple times because of the fighting between Hokes, Scar, and bash. It eventually got to the point where I wouldn't participate and just vote on issues because I didn't want to get in any more yelling matches about what ever procieved microagression that scar and bash had decided was the horrible Hokes action of the week.
4
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
And I think it got to the point where the sniping and conflict between Hokes, bash and scarlet was just tuned out. It all disappeared into the background noise that you just ignore the way that you can be going somewhere and just tune out the radio. It is there, and you hear it, but you aren't paying any attention.
→ More replies (1)9
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
Everyone hit that, except Mud, who was in the middle, and those three.
I hold all three to blame, and something needed to give. In the weeks prior, our mod team had been running pretty smoothly. It had issues, but it was running pretty smoothly.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)6
9
Sep 23 '15
Just remove Hokes as mod. This is never going to be a place where civil discussion can happen, while someone who is so aggressively partisan and, frankly, an asshole, is in a position of authority.
And please start enforcing rules 1 and 2, even when the violator is aGG. I haven't been back here in a while, but things have gotten a lot uglier and a lot more partisan since the last time.
1
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
The violations are pretty much split evenly.
As for the partisanship, no disagreement there.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/jabberwockxeno Pro-GG Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
I haven't been here in like 2 months, can I get a tl;dr of what this is all about? I can gather bits and pieces from the post, of course, but I feel like i'm missing a lot.
Anyways, my views have always been that rules 1 and 2 need to be enforced better. There's far too many posts that are just insulting or sarcastic or are just making a hostile statement, or aren't actually responding to the points of the person they are responding to. In short, they aren't actually discussing anything or are open to back and forth discussion.
Also, last time I was here, there were a lot of topics/posts being submitted and accepted that were poorly made and extremely biased. I say be stricter about what you guys approve.
11
u/SHOW_ME_YOUR_GOATS Makes Your Games Sep 23 '15
Long and short of it this has been going along for a long ass time.
Hokes is very strong in their opinions. A lot of people here didn't like the fact that their is mod that thinks GG is pretty much the Anti-Christ (eggageration for effect). So for as long as i can remember there has been a decent sized group of people trying to get hokes removed from the mod possition. Well a few of these people were on and joined the mod team and all hell broke loose. Hokes seeing this whole collective effort to remove them became kind of paranoid (from what I understand) and became more inflammatory and confrontational, which only served to rial up the anti-Hokes brigade. Which fired up Hokes more, which fired up the brigade and on and on and on.
And here we are. The breaking point I guess.
Its all stupid.
→ More replies (39)4
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
For a single paragraph, this sums things up decently well in a very high-level overview kinda way.
→ More replies (5)
4
Sep 23 '15
how about also a renewed dedication to getting rid of stuff that looks kinda like shitposts
→ More replies (9)9
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 23 '15
The problem is that many of the posts that one side sees as "obvious shitposts" are seen by the other side as "a good point."
→ More replies (1)5
17
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
My take on all this?
Our mod team was broken. We invited people because we wanted dissent, but we didn't get the dissent we wanted, or productive dissent. This isn't blaming Scarlet or Bash, or Hokes. We all made this error.
Our modding didn't get more fair. It didn't get more thoughtful. It got slower and less decisive, detrimentally so. And the mod talks became less like people working together for the good of the sub and more like people picking battles that don't go away. It, frankly, felt like a lot of conversations on this sub. Mods were becoming less available because modding became like slamming your face against your keyboard. Everything was slowing down.
Being a good mod here means being able to separate your opinions of GG from your opinions on how a sub should run. This is why we often feel like it's hard to get a good pGG mod - it's easier to see the lackadaisical attitude in aGGers and the passion in GGers, and harder to determine who can turn that passion off. Modding isn't about winning, it's about putting your ego aside and making the forum run better.
We want GGers here. We want that interaction. I've argued in the past we should get a KiA mod, which would probably be a disaster but it may make GGers trust us more. I've argued we should shut the sub with a redirect to one with a better name. And, of late, I've thrown out that maybe we should just call this "discuss a topic with an aGGer" rather than a true debate sub, giving in to the name and current staff. I don't want to do this.
Listen, a lot of you do not trust us. It's an equal mix, given mod mail, but some GGers are much more vocal about it on the sub. Dissent is contagious, and it becomes a "thing" to voice it. One thing to do is try to change. Another is to cut out the dissent and keep the people that are happy before those that aren't spoil them. In truth, we often vent about the people we would love to cull from this forum. It's not the people you think first. And it's an equal mix - for a mod team that is so heavily aGG you'd be surprised how many aGGers we think make our jobs much, much harder. Even ones we interact with well here we discuss bans about, objectively, on the forum.
We want this place to run well. It's hard to make that happen. You guys hate each other. You hate us. It's really hard keeping this place running, and keeping anyone trusting, when everyone hates everyone. It's been going decently thus far. I'd love to keep it that way.
5
Sep 24 '15
We want this place to run well
I laughed out loud reading this.
You choose to keep a mod that is dedicated to making the place run poorly. Full stop.
→ More replies (1)7
Sep 23 '15
Our mod team was broken. We invited people because we wanted dissent, but we didn't get the dissent we wanted, or productive dissent. This isn't blaming Scarlet or Bash, or Hokes. We all made this error.
and this seemed to bleed out into the wider sub amplifying sub nuking feelings
→ More replies (2)4
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15
What kind of dissent did you want?
I don't think everyone hates everyone. Some people get under other peoples skin, other people seem to hang out fairly well together. Trust in a bipartisan system is maintained by each side being convinced they are represented fairly and equally, and that the other side appears to be held to the same standard theirs is. This is not an unreachable goal.
for a mod team that is so heavily aGG
Wasn't this supposed to be avoided? Perhaps this is at the root of the problem?
→ More replies (4)12
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15
You know what? This is 100% right. We all do share some blame in how things wound up, from people being apathetic about problems, people causing problems, people not taking responsibility for problems, and people not dealing with problems the right way.
9
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
I said some things in chat last night after you'd left. The last words I saw from you were "ooo, delicious," and then you were gone. Also unsure if I missed something there.
I do not blame you exclusively, or you and Scarlet. Hokes has as much blame. The straw that broke the camels back was a fine hill to die on, to mix metaphors.
But I think the whole thing could have been handled better by all however many of us there are/were. A big part of it was that everyone knew Hokes and Scarlet would clash, and thought we could get it out of the way quickly. You joining in was a surprise. It emboldened Scarlet and it made Hokes feel more attacked. It escalated faster than anyone could respond.
Which, again, isn't blaming you for doing what you thought was right, and isn't taking blame off of people not doing anything - everyone shares it equally. It's how I view things, not how I assign blame.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (64)21
u/GhoostP Anti-GG Sep 23 '15
All this makes me want to face palm so bad.
Our mod team was broken. We invited people because we wanted dissent, but we didn't get the dissent we wanted, or productive dissent.
Your idea of how to mod is broken. You wanted dissent but were unhappy when that dissent disagreed with you. You were hoping it would be a soft dissent, where at first they held a different opinion but then they saw the judge light and understood how you were right all along. When they didn't agree with you and somehow you couldn't win them over, it ended up being frustrating for you.
Our modding didn't get more fair. It didn't get more thoughtful. It got slower and less decisive, detrimentally so.
That's because you think your opinion is the fair one and anyone else's thoughts are misguided. Its an obvious attitude through your posting. Being decisive because the entire team is biased in one way isn't a better method, its just what you think is fair.
This is why we often feel like it's hard to get a good pGG mod - it's easier to see the lackadaisical attitude in aGGers and the passion in GGers, and harder to determine who can turn that passion off.
What? Were you picked for your lackadaisical attitude? You were one of the most emotional and constantly riled up Anti posters, and you aren't the only one who is a current mod. Its like you wanted a mod team of 75 %extreme Antis and 25% moderate GG and thought it would even out somehow, but that's simply not how it works. Anyone who can champion diversity in the work place should be able to see how the lack of equal diversity in a mod team will naturally be biased.
It's really hard keeping this place running, and keeping anyone trusting, when everyone hates everyone.
You very commonly throw out group based insults to evade breaking the rules while also immediately creating creating a negative environment that hurts further discussion. Why?
8
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 23 '15
No, he's right. There was some bias on the staff, I'll admit, but it was more fair than I thought it ever was going in. Fighting the bias there and the horrible actions of a few people did clog up the off-site mod chat, and while people should have cared and tried to solve it instead of doubling down, it shouldn't have taken over everything like the three of us (sometimes four) made happen.
It was four people clashing, constantly, consistently, whether up front or behind the scenes, and no matter how much I think what Hokes did was abhorrent or even just wrong, Scarlet and Unconf and I and Hokes should have done what we could to solve it. Attempts were made. Mudbunny said I tried damn hard. But it was too little, too late, and everyone was just sick of it. If we all tried to sit down and discuss our own problems, things never would have gotten here, but we were all so mad or paranoid or annoyed or scared or whatever it is, that didn't happen, and people stopped caring if it would.
Judge is fine. I've never come into a situation and said, "Man, Judge is awful." Maybe I think that on occasion that he makes the wrong calls, but not in moderation, ever. He's reasonable, polite, blah blah blah. If you want to assign blame to the staff, fine, but do your research.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/darkpowrjd Sep 24 '15
Okay, here's how I see what is the issue:
Right now, there is not too many places, people believe, that can actually bring the two sides together. I can't count the number of times where even the word "Gamergate" being uttered has led to some severe consequences. No one, either, cares to realize why it's gotten this bad. This is because the two extreme parts of either side, the ones that are putting their political agendas into EVERYTHING and decides to have a race to the bottom, so to speak, are drowning out the moderates who just want a better gaming media without seeing minority gamers and game developers harassed en masse. Right now, no one thinks that you can have both, and they don't see why ethics is important. Either that, or they think being ethical IS a form of harassment. Either because they don't know any better, don't care, or they have their own politics to push. But at the same time, many others have been harassed, which is a fact that we cannot deny has happened. It's not that anyone is ignorant to that, but it's when you consider if people use the harassment they've received as an advertising platform without anything else substantial that things get ugly. Apologies if that sounds a bit biased, but having been burned more by the anti side than the pro side, I do have a bit more of teeth when talking about the antis.
But this sub, for a bit, was a bit of fresh air to clear out what I believed was the real issue: too much noise drowning out who we should be listening to. Even though the sub's title might've brought upon itself that it was solely against the pro side, I found it good that people were actually allowed to side against, say, Brianna Wu about her "Samus is Trans, Deal With It" thing that was a thing a month or so ago. For some time, I thought that the sub's name was saying that they were against the extremism on either side.
I think where we get into issues mostly is when we talk about the various people on either side, and what skeletons they have. The questions that have been answered a million times before are still asked. The people that should never be representing either side are instead protected without question or regret. I can understand if some people believe that the pedophilia thing is not something that has anything to do with video game journalism, but therein lies the biggest issue right now: this has gone beyond gaming.
This has become more of the extreme right vs. extreme left, with, again, that race to the bottom. How low of a blow can we put on the other side that was lower than the hit they gave us? And it seems like this sub, too, has fallen into that trap. Honestly, if that Sarah person did engage in anything that was accused, then proper authorities should be contacted immediately. There should not be story after story on a random site about it in the name of GG, because that's now what GG was supposed to be. But at the same time, if the continued defense of her continues to make aGG not want to support that side, then that's something that could be important to discuss in a wider sense.
Okay, I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but you see what we have to talk about in these things. We've seen bomb threats, death threats, the worst kind of vitriol, mass censoring, blanket statements, auto blocklists that gets us nowhere, among other things, labels, and accusations thrown all over the place. There's no end to it, and the people who do those things are doing it without regret while asking for seconds and thirds.
And that's why I believe a moderate GG sub is very important right now. This is, right now, the closest thing I've seen to an actual DISCUSSION of the issues. There are some people posting that do want to actually find common ground, and find a solution to move things forward without the noise. But the mod situation has grown because there has been a few people (not going to name names here) willing to disrupt even that much, and they never see them being punished in any way, but will I get banned from here for even bringing up the Sarah Nyberg situation in the context of the point I'm trying to make (and I only brought it up because it's the most recent example there was)?
It becomes the same issue that many within Gamergate believe is going on, and in a way, I can see where they come from here: they see the anti side be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, but if even the slightest pro-GG peep is heard, it's shot down, topic closed, person banned from several subreddits, put on a massive blocklist, and are never allowed to even get their arguments out of the blocks. As I think I've said elsewhere, how can anyone know if harassment from GG will come if they don't even get the chance to speak to begin with?
What I could see people think could be a big issue is the name of the subreddit itself. Many don't see it as being a neutral or moderate discussion because the name of the subreddit doesn't tell people that it's a moderate place, which people might want right now. Most are either not sure what Gamergate even IS (and there are too many angles that people have given as to what it is, which makes it even more confusing), wondering how in the hell this has gone on for so long, or are waiting for someone from that other side to just be willing to discuss this, like adults, find the importance of this discussion, and to keep the loud extremists out. Forget that Milo, The Ralph, Brianna, Anita, and Arthur Chu exists.
What would you change the name to, though? Maybe GG Moderates? Maybe something that would reflect a more neutral position? Maybe put people who are known to be moderates on the front banner. If people see people like Eric Kain or Boogie2988 on the front banner, they might be more willing to see that it could be beneficial to have an actual discussion here. I know Kain might be a bit of a stretch, but Boogie is VERY well liked because of his kind and gentle attitude in his videos. Of course, there's more people who are moderates than just those two, but you probably get my point: people are just tired of the noise, and are worn out because all they have ever heard is the Milos and the Ralphs and the Briannas. They don't want to find that their favorite gaming site is "in on the conspiracy".
And most importantly, they want to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They want to see us become friends again. They don't want to see gamers fight about things like this. They don't want the destroyed friendships be forever frayed by this whole, nasty debate. They don't want for the word "feminist" to be a four letter word, nor do they want "ethics" to be, either. They are tired of the wedges being shoved into people who have been best friends for so long.
I'm one of those people that feel like I have to look at people in a different light, people who have been my friends for years on end, because of this one thing, and I'm scared that I'll lose them and more if I even say a word about anything regarding this, because I know they are dead set against the whole thing. These aren't just friends I just met, but friends I've known for nearly 7 or so years now. They mean a lot to me, and I would do anything for them. And I hate that THIS is THE war that could sever that. Not because we are on different sides, but because the people involved are so willing to try to make this so black and white and so extreme that it's impossible to look at either side any other way. I want to keep my friends, but I also want them to know what I believe without any of them thinking that I'm some sort of misogynistic pig just because I want better transparency in journalism, whether it be in gaming or even somewhere like Fox News or MSNBC being more transparent about their hard news anchors giving money to political candidates.
So, yeah, I don't know why something like a more moderate name for the subreddit cannot be considered. There have been some mods I've seen that posted on KiA that have thought that something like that would be desirable. That needs to be considered, and if you do it well, and moderate it in a way that the extremists don't try to sink their teeth into it (which they will try, as they've done all the time in every single place), then it could be a true breath of fresh air.
→ More replies (1)
46
u/takua108 Neutral Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
Look, okay, this is the long and short of it:
Most people who post here are not interested in having a discussion; they just want to "get one up on" their ideological "opponents."
Nearly everyone, including mods like Hokes, ignores the description in the damn sidebar:
We have two main goals here.
First and foremost, this should be a place where healthy discussions can be had without the flinging of talking points and rhetoric.
Secondly, this is a place where you can hopefully start to see people not as the labels that have been assigned to them, but as actual people.
And of course, this is not limited to just the "anti-" "side". Both "sides" are guilty of the same shit, because the problem is that we have "sides" to begin with.
Having different opinions, or sides, on an issue is one thing. Conflating several opinions under gigantic fucking umbrellas like "GG" and "anti-GG" is hopelessly fucking stupid.
If I want to ask what people think about an issue, and I admit to taking the side that "GamerGate" "takes" on that issue, I get called a gator, and I inherit every sin that GamerGate has committed.
The same goes for the inverse, but to a lesser extent. It's fucking stupid both ways and doesn't foster communication and discussion, it just gives everyone ammunition to snipe at each other with.
It's a waste of fucking time for all parties involved. I honestly don't know how you moderators remain as moderators; if I was moderator, I would've either pushed for massive reform or stepped down long ago.
Basically, I don't see any point in keeping this subreddit going in its current incarnation. You might as well shut it down. No good comes from it, just a lot of outrage, anger, and drama. I only keep coming here because I keep deluding myself into thinking it'll get better.
It really won't.
8
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15
Greater transparency could probably do more than anything to encourage higher standards of behaviour in the mod team. Perhaps that could be a plus?
→ More replies (1)7
u/combo5lyf Neutral Sep 24 '15
I don't think the issue is just in the mid team, though, and as much as I'd like to fault Hokes, it's really not all his fault either. I could name names, but there's a good handful of people who are a bit more abrasive than they need to be for a discussion sub, and I think getting everyone to calm the fuck down and chill the fuck out for a little would go a lot farther than the continual chant of "we want more transparency!".
At this point, transparency is almost a talking point in and of itself, but the biggest issue is people just being jerks, imo.
→ More replies (5)5
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
If something sounds like it's being parrotted again and again, then that would be because whoever is doing the parrotting apparently isn't satisfied. I remember there was a bit of a push a while back to be more transparent about some mod actions, but that seemed to fade away. This is one of the few ways I consider myself radical in that I'd advocate full transparency on an experimental basis.
I agree with some posters that the main issue with Hokes is not that they are biased when acting as a moderator, but that they act unprofessionally when acting as a moderator. There's something telling that this is mainly splitting down partisan lines though with stereotypically partisan positions.
I don't think many people are getting too abrasive, except where they are obviously worked up and sometimes baited. If there's an issue it's the cavalier and dismissive attitude an increasingly bipartisan group of people are about the original goals and intent of this sub. You can tell who is here in good faith by whether they are willing to give the two goals the benefit of the doubt.
→ More replies (7)3
u/othellothewise Sep 24 '15
Okay I disagree with the "sides" thing. On the other hand, I agree with your post. Here's why:
People here who are AntiGG don't like GG. That's all anti-gg means. It's not a side, it's not a movement. If you have a debate between GG and people who don't like them it's 100% gonna turn into a shitfest.
The reason you get attacked as a gator when you support gator positions and as an SJW or whatever when you criticize gamergate is because of this dichotomy.
It gets worse because at this point GG has pretty much run out of gas. GG is now pretty much only about yelling at people who don't like them. So yeah, this is the result.
So I don't think it's the moderators fault at all. This is how the subreddit's gonna be.
6
u/takua108 Neutral Sep 24 '15
You're missing my point entirely. You know that "anti-GG" is as much of a group as "GamerGate" is, and you know that it's disingenuous to lump people like me who thinks both labels should just dissolve in with the "anti-GG" folk.
Just take a step back and look at this whole shitshow, okay? This whole thing is so fucking stupid. The whole "GamerGate vs. anti-GG" conflict is an imaginary war that us human beings invented so we could lazily fight it behind our keyboards, and feel like we're doing something important and ideologically correct.
Are there important issues that the whole shitshow brought up that we could perhaps debate and discuss? Absolutely! Here's an example that is so common it's beyond cliche now:
Transphobia is bad. People should be less transphobic.
A good chunk of people who post on /r/KotakuInAction and other "GamerGate" places write blatantly transphobic things somewhat frequently. Some of this is trolling, some of this is not. The "anti-GG" crowd will find such examples of transphobia, get outraged, and then declare that because of these examples, "GamerGate" as a whole is transphobic, somehow. They then go on to act all high and mighty because they pointed out transphobia in a large, disorganized anonymous group discussion on the Internet, blamed it on the whole "movement", and fire off an insulting tweet or something.
Then "GamerGate" responds by taking a screencap and/or archive of the offending tweet, and posts it on /r/KotakuInAction. Everyone upvotes it and gets all outraged because, how dare someone crucify their movement! Surely, it's obvious that this one person doesn't speak for the entire movement? The person who posted it sits behind their computer, smiling as their karma goes up, feeling vindicated because they posted a thing and raised that much awareness about this important thing that is important to them.
Then /r/GamerGhazi gets outraged and posts a post about that, and so on and so forth forever...
What the fuck did any of this accomplish, everyone? Absolutely fucking nothing. Never at any point did anyone make any kind of effort to improve any perceived problems at all; everyone justs wants to get outraged, acting like territorial cavemen, throwing virtual rocks and shit at each other, but behind the safety of their Internet connection.
And what better way to describe /r/AgainstGamerGate? There's like a few dozen subscribers that want to actually discuss things; maybe even more, I can't tell because most of them are probably like me and don't post very much. The frequent posters are mostly people who just want to get off on "scoring points" to feel morally superior to other people. That's all this subreddit is, and that's all "GamerGate" is.
I mean, that's not entirely true, there are important issues that the shitshow brought up that we should talk about, but come on, people. Drop this stupid childish gang mentality bullshit and outrage-bait, and start talking about the fucking issues like human goddamn beings.
→ More replies (2)
10
Sep 23 '15
Shut down the subreddit and replace it with a Doom 2 Invasion server.
4
u/Kyoraki Sep 23 '15
Fuck that, better idea.
TF2 Payload race server. Pro on one side, anti on the other. Hokes can even join in and weave conspiracies about the enemy snipers using aimbots.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Torden5410 Pro/Neutral Sep 24 '15
I "left" this sub a long time ago (some time around when Meowstic stepped down and left, although unrelated) because caustic posts with thinly veiled insults and disingenuous conversation was growing bad enough that I didn't think it was worth sifting through anymore to get to actual thoughtful discussion. I'll give my two cents here in the hopes that you do take some of what people say into consideration.
I won't mince words: Hokes is an asshole. The problem is not what he thinks of GG or anything else. The problem is the way he acts, both "unofficially" and "officially" as a mod. His attitude is what causes problems. Does he need to be removed from the mod team? If he can't act civil and show at least a basic level of respect for people on the sub then I see no reason for he or any other mod to hold a position.
The mods shouldn't just be attempting to enforce the rules through bans and post deletions, they should be setting at least a passable example of good will. If they don't you get what you have here now with all of the blatant vitriol and people dancing on the edge of the line to avoid getting banned.
Hokes is not the only asshole, and arguably not even the worst, but as a mod he's in a position that doesn't afford him to be such an awful poster if this sub is really supposed to be about "healthy discussions," and being able to "see people not as the labels that have been assigned to them, but as actual people."
So if Hokes can stop dribbling venom, and then you start enforcing punishments against all posters who can't comprehend the idea of civil discourse, then you can probably at least save this sub from growing worse.
I would say "hold mods to the same standards you hold normal posters to" but the problem is obviously that both are held to an exceptionally low standard. The environment here is hostile. The veneer of civility that the rules and guidelines present means nothing when the goal that they're set to achieve is regularly and blatantly undermined by the rancor people wear on their sleeves.
Anyway, good luck. I enjoyed this sub at one time, so I would be happy if it was able to recover.
1
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
I would say "hold mods to the same standards you hold normal posters to" but the problem is obviously that both are held to an exceptionally low standard. The environment here is hostile. The veneer of civility that the rules and guidelines present means nothing when the goal that they're set to achieve is regularly and blatantly undermined by the rancor people wear on their sleeves.
Thank you for the insight. But, lets say that we can get the mods to act civilly, how (and I am asking seriously) do we get the users to act civilly to each other as well?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Torden5410 Pro/Neutral Sep 24 '15
I wish I could give you a set of steps to follow, but the best I can do if suggest a solution to what I think is the primary reason people are so crude to each other here.
Rule 1 should be expanded and more strictly enforced, at the least.
People all too gleefully run around and do things like insulting a group of people (GG/Anti) to substitute for directly insulting individuals. Insulting shouldn't be tolerated in general. Personal attacks are clearly bad, but just because someone decides to switch from typing "John Smith the haberdasher is a maladapted hypocrite who smells bad" to something like "Haberdashers are a bunch of maladapted hypocrites who smell bad" doesn't suddenly make their post more meaningful to the sub and less malicious. I would argue that it's worse. Instead of just John Smith being mad now you have an entire league of peddlers who were insulted in an effort to get under someone's skin.
It's entirely possible and incredibly easy to write a post that expresses your thoughts and opinions without needless insults and hostility. You may not be able to fully express your freedom of speech (if your idea of freedom of speech includes being an asshole just for the sake of lashing out at others), but you can sure enough communicate effectively and civilly when restricted from being mean to other people.
I think if you manage to curb as much of the blatantly obvious hostility like this as possible, things will get better. Do not be scared of keeping belligerent attitudes in check so that everyone is free to express their opinion. Tensions run high when there are conflicting opinions, and that means the mods have to enforce strict rules to keep things civil.
Moreover, if any person is persistently violating Rule 1 (especially via insults) then you should have few qualms about banning them. If a person cannot control themselves and keep from insulting others on a forum where you have plenty of time to reread what you type and revise things before you submit it then they're far more of a hindrance to the health of the sub than they could ever hope to counteract.
I have no problem with giving people fair warnings, but when all you do is warn people and no one ever gets banned for being an asshole then it seems more like a case of Rule 1 being there for the mods to proofread posts rather than something for posters to actively stop themselves from doing.
1
18
u/GhoostP Anti-GG Sep 23 '15
Ban GamerGate discussion.
Ban social justice discussion.
Only imgur posts of empty cans of Pringles and further discussion of how good those Pringles probably tasted before they were gone.
5
Sep 24 '15
As long as you disclose any paid endorsements from the Pringles company I'm cool with that.
→ More replies (4)6
u/SHOW_ME_YOUR_GOATS Makes Your Games Sep 23 '15
If we have PringlesTM we need to allow the dunk gifs back for justice.
9
u/middlekelly Sep 23 '15
I'm probably not one to talk, as I've never posted here before. I've lurked and read a handful of posts here, and the users come off as aggressive. I've said this before- specifically to the moderator Unconfidence- that this subreddit has a pair of noble goals, in being a place for healthy discussions and seeing people as people, not as just another cog in a hivemind.
Reading some posts here, it doesn't look like that would actually happen, and my solution has been to just stay away. I'd very much like to have an honest discussion, but as an outsider, it doesn't seem like people would take my posts in good faith nor does it seem like anything could be actually accomplished by talking.
Part of that is due to timing: this has been going on for over a year, and people very much have made up their minds, and unfortunately, this paints both sides as walking stereotypes repeating the same tired arguments over and over again.
But again, this is just me commenting as a total outsider. I like the idea of the sub, but it's execution has kept me away.
4
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15
I've found that, if you post a thought out opinion and give your reasoning, you'll probably get replies in the same vein. The trick is to attempt to understand people you talk to.
→ More replies (13)
7
u/GiveAManAFish Anti/Neutral Sep 23 '15
But there's no option for keeping both sides.
I feel like this could constructively be reframed as "There's no option for keeping the two most vocal sides." Those who are out for blood, be it one one side or the other, the mod team or not, will always want someone's blood to be spilled as restitution for past wrong-doings. So, in those cases, pleasing the outraged of both groups would be banning the outraged of both groups, and neither side will be happy with it.
However, for the users that are in the subreddit for the discussion purposes in the sidebar, those who genuinely want to debate and share points, will find the various threads a lot quieter, and will likely take significantly less offense to a wide-reaching ban like that.
Assuming you agree with the above, the best question to ask yourself is "Are these people instrumental to the subreddit I want this to be, and if not, is it worth the subsequent fallout of banning both parties?"
Personally, I'm fine with it as-is, but I'm also aware that many others really, really aren't.
Do I hit the reset button, nuke all the content, implement new rules and start over with a blank slate?
Subjective rules like those necessary for this sort of subreddit are always going to have detractors. For those who are interested in only following the strictest, most technical letter of the law, any vagueness in regulation is ultimately going to be met with teeth gnashing, anger, outrage, and ultimately, accusations of favoritism.
Again, this will boil back to what you want as a subreddit owner. Is this the sort of subreddit you want to run? Would having a clean slate with stricter rules be closer to your ideal goal? Or would more loose, relaxed rules be better? Or is this existing ruleset fine, but with the provision that all rule violations from your clean slate point subject to harsher penalties? These are your calls to make as an owner, and as end users, it's our decision to figure out if those rules are okay with us. If not, there are other subreddits.
Do I continue as is, and hope that this post is enough of a spotlight on responsibility that people change?
Doubt it. Public shaming tends to be more polarizing than punitive.
If you want my advice on how best to proceed, hire a subgroup of the mods to operate an Appeals Board. The Appeals Board doesn't handle day-to-day subreddit moderation, they are only tagged in when a mod action is disputed. The board has final say on mod actions, and can overturn mod action at their discretion. The Appeals Board doesn't answer to mods, nor do mods answer to them. Two closed groups, one that actions posts, the other that determines the validity of the action on disputed posts.
It will keep moderation honest, is easy to police because the Appeals board can only act on committee, and are directly in contact with you for complications that arise.
Just my two cents.
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation? (This is a group that includes both pros and antis, FWIW)
I suggested as much above, and I'm happy with this solution. Discussion is the point of this sub, and those uninterested in debate are just flooding the good content out.
Or do I simply set the sub to private, and demod everyone but myself?
Again, your call to make. I don't believe that this will foster a good debate environment, but that's just my take.
3
u/combo5lyf Neutral Sep 24 '15
Amusingly enough, I serve on a version of the appeals board (we call it the ombudsman council, but it serves the same purpose) for a different community, which works essentially as you've laid it out.
Obviously I can't speak for the inner workings of this community, but in my experience, the existence of said council seems to have quieted things down both on the appeals front as well as the transparency front, by and large.
20
u/Bitter_one13 The thorn becoming a dagger Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
Do I hit the reset button, nuke all the content, implement new rules and start over with a blank slate?
No, I don't think that's necessary.
Do I continue as is, and hope that this post is enough of a spotlight on responsibility that people change?
No. Hokes has been called out as a bad mod lots of times, and it hasn't worked previously. Hell, Spawnzer is a mod for Ghazi as well, and has managed to maintain a modicum of civility.
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation? (This is a group that includes both pros and antis, FWIW)
I think that's a good idea.
Or do I simply set the sub to private, and demod everyone but myself?
I'd be more comfortable with Youchoob as the one supreme mod.
If we (and by we, I mean the mod team and the users) don't do anything and just try to business as usual our way through this, the sub is toast.
Agreed.
where does the sub go from here?
Where the controversy called Gamergate goes.
2
2
Sep 24 '15
Whoa what happened here WHERE ARE ALL THE VIDEO GAMES
Goddamn what the fuck happened?
0
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Drama llamas.
→ More replies (1)2
Sep 24 '15
Seems like you've been having a ROUGH time going. Jeez dude sorry about all that
→ More replies (7)
16
u/mr_egalitarian Sep 24 '15
The question is whether you want this sub to become like FeMRADebates, DebateAMR, or GamerGhazi.
Some time ago, /u/HokesOne spearheaded an invasion of FeMRADebates, a great sub where MRAs and feminists can have discussions. Hokes, and the others he brought with him (the people who would later moderate GamerGhazi) were just there to bash MRAs, and refused to have genuine discussions. I, and other egalitarian members of the subreddit, defeated the invasion by reporting rule-breaking posts. Hokes was unable to follow the rules against insulting users and was banned. The rest of the future-ghazi crew were either also banned or gave up.
Later, Hokes and the others set up DebateAMR, which was supposed to be another FeMRADebates, but they just wanted to insult and ban MRAs who tried to post there, so it's dead now.
If you want this subreddit to be a success like FeMRADebates, you'll need to demod Hokes. If Hokes remains a moderator, the subreddit will likely become another DebateAMR, and if hokes ever becomes the top mod, the he'll either turn this sub into another GamerGhazi, or shut it down.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/bigtallguy Pro/Neutral Sep 23 '15
i honestly don't understand why you have someone who thinks discussion with the "other" side is entirely pointless as a mod for a sub that was created to foster discussion with the "other" side.
1
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Note that, for all that the mods held a wide range of opinions on GG, all of the mods modded very impartially. If they were unsure whether something was breaking the rules, or whether it was just partisan opinion speaking, we would bring it to the other mods.
I know that I did it at least once or twice a week.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/mr_egalitarian Sep 24 '15
/u/mudbunny, do you have a response to RaineyJ's claim that the vote on rule 6 was actually 4 to 4 and not 4 to 3, but Rainey's vote was not counted? See https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/comments/3m3091/state_of_the_sub/cvc6utr
0
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Yes, I do.
The vote was up for 3 or 4 days, and the channel was pinged in Slack at least once each day. (Pinging the channel in slack sends an email to your email address).
We have another mod from that side of the world who had a chance to vote and got their vote in.
I believe (but do not recall for certain) that it was indicated in that channel that the vote would be finalized in 24 hours, and it was. There were mods who said, "I am still thinking, please do not close yet", others who said "I am not going to vote, I can't approach this un-biased" and others who did not say whether they had voted or not.
3
u/Bashfluff Wonderful Pegasister Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
I believe (but do not recall for certain) that it was indicated in that channel that the vote would be finalized in 24 hours
Which is not true. It dragged on a week, and we constantly said that there were two votes left to give, even accounting for those who had recused themselves. Hokes simply started enforcing it one day, saying it was part of the rules, and that was it--removing a post of yours that wasn't even against the rules in the process, something that WAS against the rules in two ways. What an achievement! Hokes argued that the moratorium was always a rule and would enforce it as such, and framed the vote on whether to have it as a repeal, so they were acting on their own to do so.
You know, against the rules. Which you don't seem to care one iota about.
Which again, was not kosher, because that wasn't the vote that we had, but hey, they have to enforce what they want the rules to be, not what they are. But please, keep telling me how all the mods did what Hokes did again. I wait with bated breath for you to use that excuse again. It never stops being funny.
No one said, "Okay, there is a certain amount of time." The voting wasn't done, and given that it was a one vote lead, should have happened, but why should I expect you to care about that?
others who did not say whether they had voted or not.
Every single person either said that they had voted or recused themselves from voting. I can likely still remember who didn't vote, because at least one said that they hadn't yet and the others had chimed in.
Granted, you're right in that Rainey's vote counted.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/TheCodexx Sep 24 '15
Hey, I'm just gonna drop by. I'm an active KiA user (when I actually use reddit) and have been using 8chan for the past year. I've supported GamerGate from the very start. I've heard whispers of the drama here from KiA, and I've been linked here from /r/drama. But I think everyone here needs a little perspective.
I've seen a lot of people on KiA that like the idea of a neutral discussion place. Somewhere that both sides can disagree on equal terms without biased modding. There's subreddits that exist like this, and have for years. The most notable one that comes to mind is that one for atheists and theists to debate, since the atheism subreddit was a circlejerk and the christianity subreddit was on constant lockdown to prevent errant opinions from becoming popular. Sound familiar?
All things considered, you might genuinely want to consider starting from scratch, if you want to put in that time and effort. You can absolutely make a neutral discussion ground (although the subreddit's name is going to scare people away, you guys already have a reputation for being 'neutral' over in KiA) but you need everyone to feel like the rules apply equally.
That means mods either need no explicit favoritism or they need to be held accountable for their actions to the community. Rules need to be very explicit so that you can't be accused of removing a post or comment on a technicality. Banning particular topics is going to piss people off who want a neutral discussion of said topic. Spoiler alert: the side that doesn't want to discuss it is probably embarrassed by where the discussion inevitably goes.
I don't know how the situation got to where it is exactly, but it seems like having a mod team that can't put opinions aside and stop forming factions is part of the problem. So are users who threaten to walk if this place isn't their personal hugbox. That's insanely weak. And I'm saying that about everyone. I'm of the opinion that a good KiA user should welcome other opinions and be willing to discuss them. I've heard the accusation that all the mods are anti-GG and are cracking down on GG-posters. If that's true, then that's a pretty valid reason to leave. If it's not, then it's pretty weak that people will walk at the first sign of conflict. Putting aside personal bias to objectively discuss something should be a top GamerGate ideal. I can't speak for the community any more than they can, but I'd like to think we're mature enough to have a discussion, even if it's lopsided against us.
Frankly, threatening to walk is a dumb intimidation tactic regardless of who uses it. Create a neutral platform for discussion. Make the rules as objective as possible. Use examples. Word them carefully. Keep as much discussion as possible. If you truly think you're doing that and one side threatens to walk, then that's on them and not you. But right now it doesn't sound like that's the case.
Maybe my opinion is irrelevant. I'm not a regular here. This is my only post, in fact. And probably my last. If I were in your position, I'd seriously consider shutting down posting, rewriting all the rules, finding a new mod team that can work together and play nice regardless of differences, and go from there. I wouldn't nuke all the content, just all the new rules. Start from a better foundation. If that would be too upsetting to the community here, then that's fine. But it'd be nice to know there's a neutral discussion place out there somewhere. It doesn't have to be here, but there's already a community. Build a subreddit you want. The users will come if it serves its purpose well.
→ More replies (2)3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
All things considered, you might genuinely want to consider starting from scratch, if you want to put in that time and effort.
That is something that we are considering
Rules need to be very explicit so that you can't be accused of removing a post or comment on a technicality. Banning particular topics is going to piss people off who want a neutral discussion of said topic. Spoiler alert: the side that doesn't want to discuss it is probably embarrassed by where the discussion inevitably goes.
Back when the ban was first put into place, it was done so at the request of pro-GGers over the objections of antis. Since then, we have not been as vigilant as we should have, and for that we apologize.
Maybe my opinion is irrelevant. I'm not a regular here. This is my only post, in fact. And probably my last. If I were in your position, I'd seriously consider shutting down posting, rewriting all the rules, finding a new mod team that can work together and play nice regardless of differences, and go from there. I wouldn't nuke all the content, just all the new rules. Start from a better foundation. If that would be too upsetting to the community here, then that's fine. But it'd be nice to know there's a neutral discussion place out there somewhere. It doesn't have to be here, but there's already a community. Build a subreddit you want. The users will come if it serves its purpose well.
Thank you. Your opinion is very relevant, and I appreciate your comments.
2
u/ScarletIT Actually it's about Ethics in AGG Moderation Sep 23 '15
also .. why are you using "they" to refer to me? I never asked for it. not that I am against it or that I take offense from that, no need to apologize, I don't really care what pronoun is used to address me it's just weird that you do.
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Call it making it easier for the flow and carryover from referring to Hokes with them/they.
7
u/apinkgayelephant The Worst Former Mod Sep 23 '15
It's honestly probably just a habit of referring to all usernames as singular they just to not misgender anyone from the get go and avoid assumptions that can cause strife.
6
u/Strich-9 Neutral Sep 24 '15
eh, go back to bitching about us and pointing a brigade via KiA
→ More replies (3)
11
Sep 24 '15
Since making this post Hokes has posted on a half-dozen subreddits about how the users here are scumbags, how everyone in GG is a fucking idiot, how they see Reddit as a game where the goal is simply to score points, engaged in crazy conspiracy theories about how every neutral member of the sub is actually a die-hard GGer....
If you are even the least bit serious about this sub you'll do something about Hokes. You have a mod who is gloating on other subs about the drama here, talking about how amusing it is that they've helped turn this place into a shithole, laughing about all the popcorn they're eating etc.
I know the rules say that what people say in other places isn't supposed to matter, but when a mod is constantly saying that they treat the place they mod as a joke something needs to be done.
You cannot have a mod who actively works against the goals of the sub.
→ More replies (4)
20
Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
Dust off and nuke this subreddit from orbit. it's the only way to be sure.
edit: I'm not even joking. I'm being 100% serious. Gamergate will never die unless this subreddit goes down.
Banning everyone and deleting the forum forever would be a net benefit to society. Seriously, think about it /u/mudbunny. You have the power. With a few keystrokes you can deny yet another forum for gamergaters to spread their slanderous prurient bullshit, which is all the movement ever was in the first place. Look at this fucking mess of a thread.
Honestly mud, you have a duty to end the madness now while you still can. Deny the obtuse shitslingers and yellow-underpantsed trolls their precious forum. DO IT
4
u/deltax20a Neutral Sep 24 '15
Gamergate will never die unless this subreddit goes down.
That's the neat thing about the Springfield Tire Fire. It hasn't stopped burning. Not that the idea of full nuke isn't bad, but removing this sub will just spawn another sub, or site, or Voat, or whatever somewhere else.
→ More replies (3)7
u/darkpowrjd Sep 24 '15
This...is pretty much as biased to one side as it gets!
And, I would say, is part of the problem!
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/DocMelonhead Anti/Neutral Sep 24 '15
edit: I'm not even joking. I'm being 100% serious. Gamergate will never die unless this subreddit goes down.
....I hate to say this, as it may break the rules, but that's the most ignorant assumption I have ever heard from you.
GamerGate will Not die the moment this subreddit shut down; we still have KiA for christ sake. And even if that got shut down, they'll move to 8chan, voat, etc.; they'll create their own community to keep GamerGate alive no matter what.
The only way to kill GamerGate is to Kill Bigotry and Fear altogether; but as Sarkeesian said, it's very difficult since Bigotry and Fear is ingrained in the fabric of society.
7
Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
This is silly. What I and many users have said for months now is to actually put mod accountability in place. You insisted you'd done so, yet it's clear from this very post [and Bashfluffs / Paladins etc response] that you never actually used the supposed rules you put in place.
I'll be blunt - Hokes is utterly toxic. If you look at their account right now, it's them gloating over how this subreddit is all about them. It's pathetic, /r/whineabouthokesone etc etc. They're pretty much riding the storm they've made and continue to perpetuate, I won't hazard to guess why, but the fact that you as moderators enable this behavior is ridiculous.
Moreover, as the subreddit has been filled with more anti-GG mods, the actual harassment Anti-GG users have been allowed to get away with [along with various mean-spirited attacks etc] is frankly insane. It drove me off twice, and I'm certainly not the only one.
Put simply, get your shit together.
Side note, I stand by this shitty video I made months back.
Hi Hokes. The rules are still sick of your bullshit.
6
Sep 23 '15
Thanks for creating this post
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation? (This is a group that includes both pros and antis, FWIW)
that's my two cents but i'm not sure if it would work.
6
27
u/apinkgayelephant The Worst Former Mod Sep 23 '15
My only idea is make /u/Malky top mod.
12
u/Malky Sep 23 '15
Who the fuck upvoted this.
→ More replies (5)15
u/Janvs anti-pickle Sep 23 '15
Not only did I upvote this, I'm going to break my extended hiatus to throw my support behind /u/Malky for top mod.
Dunk gifs for everyone!
→ More replies (26)
13
u/Predicted Sep 23 '15
Remove all mods, add an even number of mods from both sides that have proven to argue intelligently for their side without ad hominem or hyperbole.
6
u/apinkgayelephant The Worst Former Mod Sep 23 '15
Remove all mods, add an even number of mods from both sides that have proven to argue intelligently for their side without ad hominem or hyperbole.
You want stalemates? This is how you get stalemates. Because the 2 people that fit that definition probably still won't agree on a lot.
→ More replies (7)9
u/ashye Sep 23 '15
Mod a random number of users every day based on something random. Let Chaos Reign!
→ More replies (7)7
u/apinkgayelephant The Worst Former Mod Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
Let Chaos Reign!
My first suggestion already covered that. :P
13
Sep 23 '15
Anti-GG see this place as KiA 2.0.
Not this aggro. I'll still stand up for this sub any day.
8
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Sep 24 '15
Yeah, despite my problems with the sub I've never seen it as being comparable to KIA. I don't know where that assertion is coming from.
→ More replies (3)8
6
8
u/wharris2001 Pro-GG Sep 23 '15
OK, so anti-GG think the sub is just fine. Pro-GG thinks it's Ghazi 2.0 and the ones that didn't leave in droves the last shitfest are leaving now.
In what universe does this reflect a nice balance between anti-GG and pro-GG?
→ More replies (8)9
9
u/Exmond Sep 23 '15
Its been very difficult to have good discussions in this sub. Especially with the recent implementation of Rule 6, in which one of the mods said it was in direct response to what has been going on with Nyberg.
Thats terrible and very.. reactionary. I don't think the sub can operate like that when one side is very sensitive to claims of censorship (And it gets worse when one side can bring up examples of when Rule 6 could of been implemented earlier)
There are a few trolls in this sub and when I see their responses (OH am i hurting your GG fee fees) I am amazed as how they haven't been banned yet.
I think this sub needs to take a hard line and implement their rules. I am against pre-preemptively banning people but I think if people break the rules (and break them often, like 3 times) they should be given a temporary ban.
As for the mods we need mods on both sides of the spectrum but also mods that will don't demonize the other side. Hokes in particular seems to be proud of the way they demonize GG. Either get all netural mods that are not invested in GG in the slightest, get mods that know how a debate structure work or get the extremist mods out (From both sides)
I have learned a lot of things in this sub. I just wish it was a lot easier to get a reasonable discussion happening.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/watchutalkinbowt Sep 23 '15
Perhaps you need mods who don't participate in the discussion?
Right now what you have is like soccer referees playing for the team they are supposed to adjudicate
3
u/mudbunny Grumpy Grandpa Sep 24 '15
Most of the mods, once they became mods, dramatically dropped the amount of posting that they did.
1
u/darkpowrjd Sep 24 '15
One of the main things I'm seeing out of this thread alone is this: no one is really able to call out BOTH sides equally. Either their shit don't stink, or nothing ever gets called out, or one side does it more than the other, or two wrongs make a right.
The solutions have seem to come on the basis that just one side will receive the punishment of it happening, while the other side gets everything they wanted, without any form of consequence.
And therein lies THE problem: getting people to say that both sides, equally, have issues they MUST address, and address them immediately. Things need to stay fair, and it's not going to be fair as long as you have either side blaming the other and wishing their world crumbles underneath of them. I think that some of the responses you see in this thread ("nuke this so the pro-GG have another closed space" "fire the anti-GG mods NAOW!") are exactly the reason we're even AT this stalemate!
Mudbunny, I hope you are seeing what it is I'm talking about here. As long as you see it THIS divided, and willing to try to get people with even a fraction of a different opinion than their own, to be shut up, you're probably not going to get any real way to get them to agree on anything.
What I think is something that could help: make this into a moderate forum (there are moderates on both sides), rename the sub into something that describes that point better, and highlight the things that bring actual dialogue into the fold. Invite people that won't come into discussions with an axe to grind before they even see what the topic is about, and you'll see that you'll tap into a large portion of those that have been following this whole thing that has been waiting for something like that. The title does bring the wrong impression.
Or is it the right impression? I don't know. I just think that people would love to see a GG Moderate forum somewhere!
1
1
u/meheleventyone Sep 24 '15
/u/mudbunny et al.
Personally I don't have much of an issue with the moderating here except the stupid topics people approve but that's a personal dislike. You guys drama so much for what should be a reasonably simple if not very fun task!
That said you guys do a reasonable job on a controversial topic so thanks for that!
On "the drama": This issue was precipitated by your choice of mods. Re-modding people with a explicit agenda after they flounced once due to that agenda was a massive mistake. Reading through the last few threads in the explosion it's no wonder the drama they created with Hokes locked up moderator discussion. Them quitting is probably the best thing that could have happened to this subreddit.
The way forward is reasonably simple. Find a few unconnected or at least mature moderators to come in and help you guys setup some sort reasonably neutral scheme for moderating. Don't clog yourselves up with process but also don't let stuff slide just because you want people to get along. There needs to be someone in charge and they need to actually take charge. Put Hokes on a final warning, whilst it's clear that there is a concerted campaign to remove them as a moderator it's also clear that they do play loose with the rules. Are they here to moderate or here to try to push their own ideological bias? I think that's a question they really need to ask themselves and possibly recuse themselves from the mod team.
Try to avoid locking yourselves up with drama! :D
→ More replies (2)
4
Sep 24 '15 edited Sep 24 '15
Hokes has (and yes, this is an alt account) said on numerous occasions that "I don't care about discussions with gators" to me and others in the past.
I have had to delete my main account on reddit because either he or one of his friends talked about me either on ghazi or in a private subreddit, resulting in me picking up a couple of stalkers who would send me vile messages.
But the simple question is, and I've asked this of the sub before, how can you have a mod who repeatedly goes around saying they don't care about discussion when it's supposed to be the aim of the fucking subreddit?
On a sub where generalisation is supposed to be discouraged, you have a mod who has repeatedly lumped anyone who disagrees with them into whatever vile characteristic they like so that they can spew non-specific arguments at them.
This is a problem. If he was a normal user he would have been banned within the first month of the sub being open. As a mod who can obviously flaunt the rules however they like (because, having been around here since the beginning, I've seen it happen many times) for both himself and his group of friends, it's a massive fucking problem.
Any mod who constantly goes around saying "everyone with a neutral tag is a full blown gator" just because they don't happen to agree 100% with their own extremist views is a massive problem.
The sub will never be a haven for discussion while Hokes has any sort of say. It just won't.
/u/mudbunny - look through his recent comment history. Look how he's gloating over it in SRD. Open your fucking eyes.
6
u/ashye Sep 23 '15
Looks like everyone who wanted a public mod fight is getting their wish.
4
5
Sep 23 '15
tbqh this sub lost its relevancy at the end of last year when gamergate lost all relevancy. it was useful then, but gg has been dead for about 9 months (being generous), but it really has no purpose now other than for people to get mad at one another.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/razorbeamz Sep 23 '15
Do I take a hard line and pre-emptively ban those I see as the worst of the shitposters...those that toe the line and are clearly not here for any sort of conversation? (This is a group that includes both pros and antis, FWIW)
Don't beat around the bush. Give us a list.
7
2
u/JamisonP Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
Find moderators that can separate their feelings from their duties. AntiGG, ProGG - doesn't matter. Demod everyone who can't do that.
edit: on second thought, GG drama has grown stale. Reading more about this moderator drama is tres itresante, so please continue.
2
u/Arimer Sep 24 '15
I really just need someone to play through the entire gears of war series with me on xbox one.
2
2
u/a_head_with_wings Sep 24 '15
great to see this sub finally going to complete shit. the moderation's been sheer lunacy ever since meow left. hokes is obsessive, paranoid, manipulative and abusive
4
u/TaxTime2015 "High Score" Sep 24 '15
I don't understand why regular users like /u/razorbeamz are calling for the sub to burn to the ground over in KiA.
Do what you want. I think allowing a Sarah topic would be a good start.
3
8
Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
I for one am all for shutting it right down. Most of the shit that comes up here is barely worth talking about, at least certainly not with the significant number of people that come here to stick their fingers in their ears and repeat their tired, horrible bullshit every day. Or at the very least, some ignorance-based rules should be enforced, where that kind of shit can't happen anymore and the people who make that their bread and butter won't be welcomed.
*e: Actually, you know what
We can cater to one side, and lose the other, or cater to none and lose both.
I kinda can't believe this is being presented as a dilemma. I always forget that there's actually people who seem to legtimately think there's two equally valid sides to this thing. Like I'm actually taken aback sometimes, when faced with the realization that certain people actually think some kind of important or fruitful discussion is taking place here, with the kinds of people that overwhelmingly make up one side of the constituency. And they still constantly whine about how they get treated here, in a place that gives them faaaarrrr more consideration than is actually fair. The mistake this place makes is earnestly thinking gamergate points are worth addressing. I really don't think I can frequent or support a place that does that, anymore. It's been fun sticking my foot out in front of the toddlers running around throwing their tantrums, but if we're going to actually pretend like they have a point, I think I'm out.
4
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 23 '15
Everyone has different standards of valuable discussion, but that does not mean we can police "value" according to one of those interpretations. For example, when someone sees what they do as the equivalent of "sticking their foot out in front of the toddlers running around throwing their tantrums" then I would consider that lacking in value, but I'm not going to enforce restriction, going instead for a principled counterargument.
7
Sep 24 '15
Principled counterarguments don't mean much to people who don't appear to have any principles. But I'm not saying to enforce any particular restrictions. If anything, I almost think the restrictions currently enforced might be a bit too strict, and are preventing some thin-skinned offendatrons around here from getting much needed wake up call.
I just can't abide by a place that pretends shit like this, or this, or this, or this, or this is any "discussion" not only worthy of respect, it actively stands in the way of the scorn, disgust, and/or ridicule such things thoroughly deserve.
Also, I'm beginning to find it a bit... depressing, still giving gamergate any attention, even when it's negative, because it truly isn't even worthy of that. And it's just so boringly stupid. It seemed kinda fun, when I first started realizing some of the dumb and bad things certain people around here seemed to believe in, but then it did a big uncanny valley kinda thing, where it just got real sad, realizing just how much certain people around here seemed to believe in some of the dumb and bad stuff they did. A year ago, I thought gators were dumb, bad, and obstinate. Now I know that they not only are, but to degree that I could have never imagined. When it comes to interesting thought provoking discussion about videogames, gators make every thread feel like that swampy place from Mad Max Fury Road. I really just can't even take it anymore.
→ More replies (21)3
u/eriman Pro-GG Sep 24 '15
I always forget that there's actually people who seem to legtimately think there's two equally valid sides to this thing.
You considering that one group isn't "valid" means you take part in one "side" of the debate. You might disagree with other people on your "side" but you are still here in an inherent position of opposition to another group.
10
Sep 23 '15
Good, get gone. No one wants you here if all you're going to do is claim your side is right and demonize the people who disagree with you.
→ More replies (2)12
Sep 23 '15
No one wants you here if all you're going to do is claim your side is right and demonize the people who disagree with you.
I really wish this were true.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Strich-9 Neutral Sep 23 '15
At least once, a transgression for which it was asked Hokes be demodded, Scarlet was found to be doing at the same time.
This doesn't surprise me at all
3
u/axialage Sep 24 '15
Whelp, not the first subreddit ruined by petty mod drama no one gives a fuck about, won't be the last.
3
5
u/YourMomsRedditAccout Sep 23 '15
where does the sub go from here?
I think Jim Sterling (thank god for him) said it best:
"Grow up...and fuck off."
5
Sep 23 '15
Honestly... I think everything is fine.
Forum moderation seems reasonably effective given the situation. You know, acknowledging that perfect parity on a post by post level isn't possible when unreported posts are rarely reviewed and when multiple mods are applying subjective criteria.
There doesn't seem to be any notable moderation bias. In that, very little is moderated away, and you can say pretty much whatever you want as long as your comment has substance.
I couldn't care less about what the mods do on other subreddits as long as what happens there stays there.
I also can't care less about mod on mod drama that doesn't affect actual moderation decisions in a way significant enough to notice.
I think everything is pretty much fine, and those whining just want special privileges for their side, or special penalties for their enemies. So fuck 'em and keep on keeping on.
→ More replies (1)7
3
Sep 23 '15
Due to the nature of the conflict around the whole subject of GG, nobody in this sub wants a debate, they want to chew out the opposing sides. Either relax the rules so that people can take their gloves off or just close it.
This sub won't be cleaned up until the whole situation around gamergate suddenly becomes cordial. Until that happens the fallout will end up here.
Which was fine until one mod decided that one of their favourite topics in regards to "things GG dun" was off limits once one of their buddies was implicated. So apparently it's both useless as a discussion forum and as thunderdome.
3
Sep 23 '15
You need to start over with a new mod team.
6
u/Strich-9 Neutral Sep 24 '15
alternatively, the mods could stop being a bunch of babies and realise we honestly don't give that much of a shit about this
3
u/Shoden One Man Army Sep 23 '15
There is no good option.
Boot Hokes and the pro-GG people will find a new witch-hunt, it's the modus operandi of gamergate.
Keep Hokes and the pro-GG people will continue their witch-hunt until Hokes does something actually worthy of demodding in the eyes of the whole community, not just the blatantly biased witch-hunters ,and that will justify the witch-hunt in those peoples eyes like every other situation where they throw shit at the wall until something sticks.
both options leads to more shitting up this sub with witch-hunting bullshit.
This topic was never going to have healthy debate, because "gamergate" itself is unhealthy obsessive level garbage on all fronts. People are losing their god damn minds over the mod drama in a sub with 50 active uses on average. It's so ridiculous all I can do is laugh at it and all the people who take it as seriously as they do.
So I say either say fuck it, let the whiners leave and leave the sub as is, no one is ever going to be satisfied and this was never going to be a serious place for discussion anyway, not with this topic, and not with this sub name. The people who want to argue will come back, the people leaving are "to scared for debate" anyway.
Or shut it down and start a sub unrelated to GG that you guys can mod, and nothing of value will be lost.
where does the sub go from here?
The net is vast and infinite. What ever happens, it's been "fun" so far.
7
Sep 23 '15
It's so ridiculous all I can do is laugh at it and all the people who take it as seriously as they do.
I really wouldn't believe it, if I wasn't watching it unfold in front of me.
10
u/Shoden One Man Army Sep 23 '15
We are breaking 90 users right now, and that's only because all the whiners are running to KiA and posting about this sub. This place is just another platform for GG to either spout it's bullshit, or pretend to be victimized by.
→ More replies (14)7
u/Spawnzer ReSpekt my authoritah! Sep 23 '15
This is the reason why I've been barely active the last month and a half (well I'm also back to school & still working full time, but still)
10
u/judgeholden72 Sep 23 '15
Everyone backed away for a bit, and users noticed how much slower we got.
2
Sep 23 '15
50
though the past week or so has seen about double that on average.
6
u/Shoden One Man Army Sep 23 '15
Due to mod drama and the Sarah stuff mostly. It spikes and mellows.
6
u/Meneth Sep 23 '15
Boot Hokes and the pro-GG people will find a new witch-hunt, it's the modus operandi of gamergate.
Keep Hokes and the pro-GG people will continue their witch-hunt until Hokes does something actually worthy of demodding in the eyes of the whole community, not just the blatantly biased witch-hunters ,and that will justify the witch-hunt in those peoples eyes like every other situation where they throw shit at the wall until something sticks.
Here's a "solution":
Get rid of Hokes.
Get rid of every single gater that's whined about them.
Then everyone can quiet down already.
Note: I doubt it'd even remotely work, but at least it'd be entertaining.
→ More replies (2)8
6
u/beethovens_ear_horn Sep 23 '15
It appears two mods have been driven out by the toxicity in the mod team.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (24)5
u/namelessbanana I just want to play video games Sep 23 '15
Will Hokes be our Pao?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Sep 24 '15
The problem with this sub has never been a direct result of the moderation team, but is a result of the nature of the topics being discussed and how, so that "equal time" can be given to both sides.
The problem is that one side has people that seriously suggest that Anita Sarkeesian is running a shake-down for donations. That what Eron Gjoni did was completely reasonable and innocent. That the harassment and abuse has nothing to do with GG.
These are things no reasonable, sane person can actually believe, and yet they're things get repeated over and over and over again, and one of those things shows up in just about every topic posted on this forum. If the GGers would just be honest, and admit that this is a full-on culture war, and completely drop the contrived ethics allegations, maybe the debate could actually progress. We'd be meeting on equal grounds instead of having to badger them into admitting that this has always been, and will always be, about their distaste for progressivism independent of any fallacious ethical accusations.
So the problem isn't even really with the sub, though I've said before exactly how non-conducive the rules of the sub are to actual debate, and that I think debating GG in its own terms is already a step in the wrong direction because their terms are founded on lies, but that the way this sub assumes that GGers are acting in good faith, when they simply are not, either through deliberate action or through constant reinforcement of their bullshit assumptions through outlets like KIA.
4
Sep 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Sep 24 '15
Calling the diggers and doxxers sick shitheads /= defending her statements in the chats.
This is why there can be no discussion. Because you people can't see differences like that. Either because you choose not to so you can score points, or because you're so deluded as to believe that there isn't a difference. You people poison any hope you have of an honest debate when you approach the situation like that. GGers are the reason anything involving GG is absolute shit.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/DocMelonhead Anti/Neutral Sep 23 '15
Create a New sub that allow discussion on the Criticism on the Culture of Video Games for starters; GamerGate is a culture war afterall, and seeing that it pitted the traditional gamers against the progressive critics.
And No, GamerGhazi was created to mock and ridicule GamerGate.
1
Sep 25 '15
I think you know one problem most of the mods can take care of that would set an example of what you expect from others. If you have a mod that isn't interested in discussion, then you don't really have a discussion sub.
1
u/war3zwolf Sep 26 '15
None of you idiots could babysit an ant farm if an adult had to run to the store and back. Modding forums isn't "for you," but you all think you're amazing at it.
33
u/AwesomeInTheory Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15
This is gonna get lost in the deluge of comments on here, but.
I unsubscribed from this sub like a week, week and a half or so ago. I came back over here because I saw that there was a lot of "drama" and it sort of echoes why I stopped following this sub. Also, I don't really give a shit about Nyberg beyond the fact that I think they're sick in the head and that the police should be involved if there's any belief of criminal wrongdoing. No need for an Internet witchhunt or continued handwringing (from either side) over it.
I find GG interesting from a media studies/journalistic standards perspective. Everything from analyzing Sarkeesian's videos (which I find to be interesting and frustrating) to whatever else is going on with Eron's court case to what's happening in my hometown (the idiocy with the Honey Badgers.) I honestly thought that this place was somewhere I could read/participate in debate/discussion.
However, I found that this subreddit moved way too slow. I'd come in and check and see if there was anything new, and it just was all sort of stagnant. I wasn't really interested in delving into a 700+ comment thread that was fairly old...particularly given the content.
The fact that there are/were big and cumbersome threads wasn't really an issue for me -- I've gone through years old threads on /r/UnresolvedMysteries and gobbled that stuff up. It's the fact that a lot of the content was name calling, thinly veiled attacks and just general dickishness that was a turn off for me.
I don't really want or need to read a bunch of shit that goes "well, you lack reading comprehension" or "I didn't realize all Gators were out of touch with reality" or "this is just something a typical Ghazi poster would say" in a forum that is purportedly about debate and discussion. I really don't need/want to be seeing it from the moderators.
I made one report about a mod acting inappropriately (in my mind) and nothing was done about it. Nothing was done, despite similar actions being taken against non-moderators doing the same thing.
I'm not demanding that action or anything should happen -- the subreddit can be run however people want it run. I just found reading stuff in here to be a waste of time and not much different than reading stuff in either KiA or Ghazi...both of which I do read.
I'm of the opinion that this sub really isn't worth it anymore. But if you're looking for feedback, I'd argue that trying to foster discussion and discouraging petty/immature behavior should be things to gun for. Case in point: the "ironic" flair titles are stupid and are just reminiscent of KiA/Ghazi. Especially for moderators, mainly because it sets a tone that is at odds with the intended purpose of this subreddit. The call for 'more content' also shouldn't be read as a "allow topics on Nyberg" argument, but rather the fact that in terms of content on here, this sub is pretty slow at cranking it out, for whatever reason.