Subject: That's not fair, July.
Author:
Posted on: 2010-06-22 06:06:00 UTC
I'm a PG but I have no idea what's been going on in the chat rooms, and I certainly wasn't the one who banned him. If there's a PG willing to stick their own nose in, fine, but I think you have to at least give your 'vote' one way or another since (unless I'm very much mistaken) you were the one who originally banned him.
I think I've learned my lesson now, and I also think it's time for me to be able to get onto the chat again. I've found other ways of venting my anger/hate/other emotions than through the internet, which means you won't have to put up with me attempting to scream through the screen through allcaps and other less than pleasant things.
I am very much capable of acting like a sane human being on the internet, as are all of you. I should have treated you all with respect from the very beginning.
...And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Neshomeh: Anyway, like I said, I wasn't here, so I can only base my opinions on what I'm told. And I agree with Sedri that perma-banning should be reserved for extreme situations.
Makari: I think Max tested the patient people's reserves. I don't remember the egregious stuff, just a lot of capslocky spam about inner turmoil. Which is fine some places.
July: Yeah.
July: The thing is, that night, I was being sorely annoyed, I will admit that, I asked Trojie to come in to deal with it before I lost me temper and to try and talk with him.
Neshomeh: And did she?
July: He angsted about his permission being denied, said he didn't listen to what anyone had told him about said permission writing example even when they all said it was a bad idea, basically showing he had no respect for other's opinions when given and didn't care about what sort of result would be got, that he used it even though he knew it wasn't something permission givers would like while trojie tried to reason with him.
July: After that, he started to insinuate that we all sucked, that he might as well leave this morass that was the PPC, etc, and that he was going to leave forever.
July: At which point I told him I'd help him with that and then I banned him from the chat.
July: While I agree that the actions do come off as an abuse of power (and likely are) I'm not going to get involved with the 'should he be unbanned or not' in the sense of 'yes he should be unbanned' or 'no he should not be unbanned'.
July: I'm going to leave it up to someone else because I don't want to be involved in this case due to my earlier actions.
Makari: Can we have a medium? Like a probationary period or something?
Neshomeh: You need to at least explain all that to the Board at large, then, so other people can make an informed decision. From what it looks like, no one's going to say any more on the subject without more information.
...Is anything going to happen?
Sean!
You should come back.
People should let you back.
Uh... right, so let me slip out of Delirium-esque mode.
The chatroom is something that we haven't really had to deal with, authority-wise, in PPC history. I think it's because the Wiki makes things really easy to find; in the past, the chatroom was only used when someone linked to it, pretty much at random, in the 'Board, and I only remember two or three times when there were more than four or five people in at once, and they were all relative oldbies and one of those was a conference on who should be nominated for a PG.
Anyway. It's like the Wiki. A new thing, and one for which we might have to have slightly different-from-the-Board rules.
I'm definitely with Sedri on the PGs not necessarily being the ones to ban and unban people-- for one, the only two PGs who are on the chat that often (off the top of my head; I can never think of the whole list) are Techno_Dann and Neshomeh. And they're not omnipresent-- for that matter, neither is July. It's a frustrating conundrum, since with the PPC getting more and more exposure lately, I don't feel comfortable just leaving it with no authority figures at all, like we (mostly) have on the 'Board.
Anyway. I disagree with perma-bans on general principle, except for people who really deserve them. In the past, the really twitch-worthy people kind of faded off the 'Board after a while, when they got the hints or made themselves so blatantlly trollish they couldn't stay. And I'd hope that'll happen in the chatroom-- but we can't really depend on it. So I think we should be patient with people, and issue a lot of warnings (yes, I know, there were), and if people come sneaking back in to notably NOT cause trouble, I think they shouldn't be publicly shamed for it.
So what we need, in short, is a compromise. PGs, on the 'Board, are here to grant permission for spin-offs, officially, and nothing else. But I think we're all kidding ourselves if we deny that their opinions have no clout, sway, or other sorts of weight synonyms. They should probably be -consulted- on a perma-ban. I don't know how that would work, outside of a 'Board-post, and that seems needlessly... spectacle-ish. Because we'd need transcripts to verify, or something, and it, just. That would get messy.
Yeah. All points raised have been valid; now we just need to find something that works for all parties, because I feel like this is going to keep coming up if we just ignore it.
(Again: I'm in favor of using bans VERY sparingly and with absolute leniency wherever possible. Anyway. Yeah. Thank you for your time! :D We now resume our regularly scheduled program of gibberish, nonsense, and tomfoolery.)
I hang around on the chat a lot (it's good company while doing homework) and I think permanent bans should probably be reserved for perverts, spammers, relentless trolls, and others of that sort. People who are just annoying can learn better.
It's kinda like the way the PPC doesn't kill badfic authors, just their creations... 'cause the badfic authors can learn better, right?
There oughta be a quasi-OFUM for chat-room residents. We have enough mini-Boarders to staff it already! :)
After all, you can't go and change it after the fact.
Send 'em over from the Board. :)
*imagines a bunch of miniature Boarders teaching classes on chat room etiquette*
I'm a PG but I have no idea what's been going on in the chat rooms, and I certainly wasn't the one who banned him. If there's a PG willing to stick their own nose in, fine, but I think you have to at least give your 'vote' one way or another since (unless I'm very much mistaken) you were the one who originally banned him.
I for one would be a lot more comfortable if the actual banning was done by PGs, or at least with their approval. Not commenting deliberately on the specifics of MAX being banned (I wasn't on chat at the time), but more as a general procedural thingy.
Elcalion
Premission givers give permission to authors who would like to write PPC missions. They are not the governors of everything PPC related. They may seem that way because before they become permission givers they are generally the more active members of the community (and after they become PGs many of them find they also have this pesky little thing called really life demanding their time and attention).
I think it should be the people that frequent the chat room that should decide whether to unban a person from the chat. Or if there is a moderator, the moderator (who can throw it in the group for discussion if they like).
July is the only regular admin on the chat, so the whole thing becomes remarkably circular if we insist that she make the decision, but I'm not a fan of heaping powers on the PGs just because they're PGs.
One specifically for chat, which does basically the same thing as PGs here. Moderators, basically. I know not all the PGs frequent chat and so they're not necessarily in the best position to know what goes on, but I do think there should be someone in authority, and preferably several someones.
Dunno if it needs to be an official title, but it would be nice to have people to whom to turn. I nominate July as one, just because it was her idea and she seems to be always on, but I don't go onto chat enough to know of anyone else who would be appropriate.
--anamia
"Moderator" is accurate enough for chatrooms. Also, I'm not comfortable with putting authority figures everywhere - where it's necessary, yes, such as giving Permission, but this is still a community, and we're supposed to all be more or less equal.
That said, July does seem to be the moderator of the chat room regardless of whether she has a title or not, and I'm fine with that.
If I'm not supposed to be posting this here, you all have the right to facepalm at me. Okay?