Thought Police?

[Alcar]

Okay then, Danny post away.

Maybe a little criticism is good. I was still under the impression that when Justin had said there is to be no discussion about on the forums anymore that it still stood.

I apoligise, but not for deleting the posts in the "Crack Down" topic, they had nothing to do with the topic.

Alcar...

[Danny]

Wow, thanks. I never expected you to capitulate... It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. Thank you.

So, where to begin? Well, at the beginning will do...

When Sydney was first overthrown, all members who criticised the new regime on OWF, and moved to TGA, had the following privileges removed:

PM
Edit
Viewing others' profiles

You told me yourself on MSN that this was done because you had heard that people were trying to "lure people to The Glass Asylum" by PM. And now you edited the links out of Sydney and Tom's posts. You (or Justin, I forget which) have said in the past that you wish nothing but good will for the Glass Asylum, and hoped that the two forums could get along. How do you reconcile this view with your attempts to stop anybody else from joining TGA?

***

The larger issue, though, is that of your refusal to allow this issue to be discussed here. You have emphasized since your rise to power that "from now on", OWF will be "the Forumers-Friendly Forum". How could this be so, when you try to tell us (well, them, as I am not really here) what we can and can't discuss here? General Oddworld Discussion is one thing, and you have every right to move topics from there, but I see no reason why there can't be topics on this issue posted in Off-Topic Discussion, as long as they are not offensive.

But when we did post topics there, you shot us down. If I may quote some of the things you said to me over MSN:

Alcar: "how dare you come onto the OWF and post like that, you knew quite well that Justin and myself didn't want this spoken of on the OWF."
Alcar: "if it was to be spoken of, it was on TGA. which did happen, until now."
Me: "Want what spoken of, sorry?"
Alcar: "TGA - OWF matters."

These others did not go together, but still typify your attitude:
Alcar: "Thats what TGA is for, an creation out of spite."
Alcar: "post it at TGA, or discuss it over PMs, it'll be deleted in a few minutes."
Alcar: "do you know how easy it is to remove posting priviledges?"

How can you justify this attitude, coming from the "caring, friendly staff of OWF"?

[Alcar]

Originally posted by Danny
When Sydney was first overthrown, all members who criticised the new regime on OWF, and moved to TGA, had the following privileges removed:

PM
Edit
Viewing others' profiles

You told me yourself on MSN that this was done because you had heard that people were trying to "lure people to The Glass Asylum" by PM. And now you edited the links out of Sydney and Tom's posts. You (or Justin, I forget which) have said in the past that you wish nothing but good will for the Glass Asylum, and hoped that the two forums could get along. How do you reconcile this view with your attempts to stop anybody else from joining TGA? (1)

***

The larger issue, though, is that of your refusal to allow this issue to be discussed here. You have emphasized since your rise to power that "from now on", OWF will be "the Forumers-Friendly Forum". How could this be so, when you try to tell us (well, them, as I am not really here) what we can and can't discuss here? General Oddworld Discussion is one thing, and you have every right to move topics from there, but I see no reason why there can't be topics on this issue posted in Off-Topic Discussion, as long as they are not offensive.

But when we did post topics there, you shot us down. If I may quote some of the things you said to me over MSN:

Alcar: "how dare you come onto the OWF and post like that, you knew quite well that Justin and myself didn't want this spoken of on the OWF."
Alcar: "if it was to be spoken of, it was on TGA. which did happen, until now."
Me: "Want what spoken of, sorry?"
Alcar: "TGA - OWF matters."

These others did not go together, but still typify your attitude:
Alcar: "Thats what TGA is for, an creation out of spite."
Alcar: "post it at TGA, or discuss it over PMs, it'll be deleted in a few minutes."
Alcar: "do you know how easy it is to remove posting priviledges?"

How can you justify this attitude, coming from the "caring, friendly staff of OWF"? (2)

1. Not everyone, there are like 50 something members at TGA. People were also swearing. With those priviledges, PM, stop the swearing/luring etc. Editing, you could easily edit some important material out of your posts. Other member profile pages, i didn't even realise until yesterday,

2. Up until now, all this was discussed at TGA because the people who were still upset about it were over at TGA. And that it wasn't to be discussed on the OWF.

Again I apoligise to the members, in a way it was censoring. But if this makes you all happy to have continued arguements, then go ahead.

Alcar...

[Danny]

Originally posted by Alcar
1. Not everyone, there are like 50 something members at TGA. People were also swearing. With those priviledges, PM, stop the swearing/luring etc.

a) How did removing PM privileges stop people swearing?
b) What right have you to stop us from trying to persuade others to join our board?

Editing, you could easily edit some important material out of your posts.

What do you mean by this?

2. Up until now, all this was discussed at TGA because the people who were still upset about it were over at TGA. And that it wasn't to be discussed on the OWF.

But how can you claim to be a Board run "by the membership", when you tell us what we can or cannot discuss here? You say that people didn't want to discuss it here, but whenever people tried to, you deleted the posts.

Again I apoligise to the members, in a way it was censoring. But if this makes you all happy to have continued arguements, then go ahead.

I do hope people aren't as easily manipulated as you seem to believe they are. Allowing criticism of the running of the Forums does not necessarily lead to arguments. And if it does, they are arguments that need to be had.

I stand by my principles. Censorship of pornographic and offensive posts, as has been practised on OWF since its foundation, is a good thing. Censorship of swearing is acceptable, if not desirable. Censorship of valid topics is unacceptable.

[Al the Vykker]

What a strange turn of events, not to mention suprising, I am saddened that it has to come down to this, I have seen two different sides, to this story, I wish though with my new outlook on this matter, and what happened, that both forums as originally inteded could atleast be at good terms,but sadly it seems thats just a dream now as many other things too.

I do though in many ways apologize to the people who left OWF, for how I did not even get a chance to say goodbye to, people who were in a sense still no matter what a part of these forums, to the people here and forum faithfuls and active members here at OWF, the members of TGA, the staff of OWF, and to the admins, and Sydney for not even allowing myself to hear his side of the story, I am willing to be friends with anyone that was here, still is, or gone, just hope you are willing to be friends with me, that is my new outlook, and will stay that way.

My kindest regards, Al the Vykker

[Alcar]

Originally posted by Danny
How did removing PM privileges stop people swearing? (1)
What right have you to stop us from trying to persuade others to join our board? (2)

What do you mean by this? (3)

But how can you claim to be a Board run "by the membership", when you tell us what we can or cannot discuss here? You say that people didn't want to discuss it here, but whenever people tried to, you deleted the posts. (4)

I do hope people aren't as easily manipulated as you seem to believe they are. Allowing criticism of the running of the Forums does not necessarily lead to arguments. And if it does, they are arguments that need to be had. (5)

1. People were swearing towards people through PMs.

2. Every.

3. Well, I mean you could edit some of your posts. These posts may contain some information that could hurt your "cause".

4. People didn't want to discuss it here, you others did. The posts deleted in the "Crack Down" topic were deleted because they were in the wrong place.

5. That's fantastic.

Alcar...

[Danny]

Originally posted by Al the Vykker:
What a strange turn of events, not to mention suprising, I am saddened that it has to come down to this, I have seen two different sides, to this story, I wish though with my new outlook on this matter, that has happened that both forums as originally inteded could atleast be at good terms but it seems thats just a dream now as many other things too.

I should point out that I do not post here as a representative of TGA. I post here as an individual. I was told by members here of what was happening, and I stood up for them. This was about principles, not inter-board rivalry.

[Al the Vykker]

I understand that Danny, thats why while you posted I was editing my post, with my true thoughts on this and what has happened before. So if you get the chance you may read it if you wish.

-Al the Vykker

[Danny]

Originally posted by Alcar
[B]1. People were swearing towards people through PMs.

That was nothing to do with the TGA issue. I swore at nobody, and the same for Sydney and Tom (at least), and yet our PM privileges were removed.

2. Every.

And yet you still claim to bear no malice towards TGA?

3. Well, I mean you could edit some of your posts. These posts may contain some information that could hurt your "cause".

That, to use your term, is fantastic. Not to mention an abuse of your powers.

4. People didn't want to discuss it here, you others did.

If your members want to discuss that issue here, you cannot silence them, and still claim to be the FFF...

The posts deleted in the "Crack Down" topic were deleted because they were in the wrong place.

Then they should have been moved to the right place, IE the Feedback forum.

[Joe the Intern]

2. Every.

I have to say this. You have no right to keep them from persuading others to TGA. It's a free board, and they can do what they want, within the limits set by your powers. Might does not make right.

[General Drippik]

You have no right to stop Danny persuading people to go to TGA. I know it has nothing to do with me, but you're only a moderator. You said it yourself in another topic, 'Everyone is to be treated equally'. You have as much right as I do.

[Danny]

Biblical-type Narrator: His work here done, the Avenging Angel of Justice returns to the Heavens from whence he came.

In other words, I'm off to bed. Don't declare Martial Law or anything while I'm gone...

[Alcar]

If you had a forum and people start coming in and persuading your members to leave and join theres then of course your going to put a stop to it.

Danny, Sydney admitted he swore through PMs about this issue.

Alcar...

[Sydney]

Originally posted by Alcar
If you had a forum and people start coming in and persuading your members to leave and join theres then of course your going to put a stop to it.

Danny, Sydney admitted he swore through PMs about this issue.

Alcar...

We were hardly persuading people to join The Glass Asylum. All what happened was that I pointed out that censoring every swear word in the book is hardly going to solve your swearing problem, and I used the example of TGA to illustrate my point.

Then, in your insecurity, you began removing every link to The Glass Asylum, as though you were fearful of losing members. You even deleted any criticism of your own moderating policies.

Rather than accusing us of coming here to "steal members", why don't you take a look at yourself and consider it might be your behaviour that's unacceptable.

And I don't think I swore through Private Messages, but I do recall saying that Justin was an insane lunatic through PM, which I don't think was unreasonable considering the circumstances I was under.

[Joe the Intern]

Originally posted by Alcar:

If you had a forum and people start coming in and persuading your members to leave and join theres then of course your going to put a stop to it.

25 people a week join OWF. You don't need to worry about losing members. People should be able to come and go as they please.

[Alcar]

Originally posted by Sydney
Then, in your insecurity, you began removing every link to The Glass Asylum, as though you were fearful of losing members. You even deleted any criticism of your own moderating policies. 2

Rather than accusing us of coming here to "steal members", why don't you take a look at yourself and consider it might be your behaviour that's unacceptable. 3

1. Not every link, that link was blantent advertising, you still have the link in your signature. That's an even bigger giveaway, but it's still there, ain't it?

2. So, you have come to take members because of my behaviour?

Alcar...

[Sydney]

Originally posted by Alcar
1. Not every link, that link was blantent advertising, you still have the link in your signature. That's an even bigger giveaway, but it's still there, ain't it?

2. So, you have come to take members because of my behaviour?

Alcar...

1. That link was not blatant advertising, it was a link perfectly acceptable within the context of the conversation. Like I said, I was using the example to illustrate my point, it was not blatant advertising.

2. I'm not taking members. People have minds of their own. The reason I suggested you look at your own behaviour is because it's your behaviour that would cause people to leave, not a mere link.

[Joe the Intern]

Originally posted by Alcar:

2. So, you have come to take members because of my behaviour?

I think what he meant was maybe members want to leave because of your behavior... He's not "stealing" any members.

Edit: Everyone keeps posting before me... My posts are becoming redundant!

[Alcar]

Please then, tell me what is so wrong about my behaviour, and i'll stop it.

Alcar...

[Sydney]

They've already been pointed out to you in this topic, and in the posts you deleted.

What do you want, a formatted list?

[Alcar]

Originally posted by Sydney
What do you want, a formatted list?

Yes, I want to know clearly stated what I should change in my behaviour. So there is no confusion.

Alcar...

[General Drippik]

Take a chill pill, Alcie baby. I think the forums are stuffed now you've taken control. Part of the reason I don't visit as much anymore.

You can stop closing topics unreasonably for starters. You closed that, 'hey, I'm the new dude' topic just because you had the power to. They were having a nice conversation in there too.


Can I take Alcars job?

[Alcar]

Originally posted by General Drippik
You can stop closing topics unreasonably for starters. You closed that, 'hey, I'm the new dude' topic just because you had the power to. They were having a nice conversation in there too.


Can I take Alcars job?

That topic, was a saying hello/welcoming topic. People had said hello, and welcomed the new member. The topic had served it's purpose.

Did you know this whole thing firstly started because I deleted posts that were not relevant to a topic?

Yes. *makes General Drippik Super Moderator*

Alcar...

[General Drippik]

Deleting posts doesn't have any point. They still have the same post count, and if people don't want to read it, they'll skip it. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that out, but it obviously takes more than the thinking power in your brain.

[Alcar]

When posts are deleted a users post count does go down.

Most forums have posts deleted if they aren't relevant.

Alcar...

[Gluk Schmuck]

You delete posts because they weren't related to the original subject. Do you not understand the concept of a thread's subject evolving? It's very simple, see, people start talking about one thing then the subject keeps changing a little bit untill we're talking about GM food.
And what is the point in closing a welcoming topic? The mind boggles as to how many threads are closed or deleted per week.

I almost forgot to mention that people can actually be members of both OWF and TGA so 'stealing' isn't possible with just a link to TGA. The person must make up their mind as to whether or not to leave OWF. For example, I am an active member of three boards.

[Danny]

Originally posted by General Drippik
Can I take Alcars job?

lol

What I consider to be your "Unacceptable behaviour" is the simple fact that you have censored or deleted valid topics and posts, stifling discussion, and yet you still claim to be the Forumers-Friendly Forum. When Sydney ran the forums, we had Freedom of Speech, in that he never tried to tell us what we could or couldn't talk about, barring directly offensive attacks on other members.

[salty pretzils]

I think this may have been the kind of thing morphius claimed to have "predicted" that would happen. Imagne what he would say if he was back here now....amusing. The ideal situation that would come out of this (I think) is that both forums would learn to get along...or at least forget the arguments ever happned. Or the members would stop griping at each other at least.
Urk..need a lie down..

[Jacob]

I think this may have been the kind of thing morphius claimed to have "predicted"

Dont mention that f*ckwit in front of me, lol...

To the people who are just having ago at Alcar cos they see everyone else is, grow up and get off his back...

To the people who have valid points. Keep those points and keep on his back...

[Danny]

Originally posted by salty pretzils
The ideal situation that would come out of this (I think) is that both forums would learn to get along...

The ideal situation would be for the OWF Administration to re-allow Freedom of Speech...

or at least forget the arguments ever happned.[/B]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."