[KillerB]

And if you’re implying we just all follow his lead without thinking, let me inform you that his idea for a new 1E format has gotten absolutely no traction with us. (He’s under a gypsy curse that makes all his 2E ideas good but all his 1E ideas terrible.)

Professor Carter and I came up with it. OTF is a mass delusion. 1E PURE is brilliant.

[KillerB]

I honesty started the two polls trying, in good faith, talk about the CoC, like Sykes asked.

Instead they made the argument about me. This discussion has nothing to to do with Ross, nerd firing, or the state of Design.

As a fan of Alinsky, let me say: well done. Nobody is talking about the CoC the last few pages. It's about Corbett's job performance or outright reputation damage. The latter of course is the only way to show aggression on these boards.

When I show aggression it's 'belligerent asshole'. I'll take it I guess. I'm sorry, but if you want to get anything done around here to make the gameplay experience better you have to be a belligerent asshole. People hate change.

[Armus]

I honesty started the two polls trying, in good faith, talk about the CoC, like Sykes asked.

Instead they made the argument about me. This discussion has nothing to to do with Ross, nerd firing, or the state of Design.

<snip>

When I show aggression it's 'belligerent asshole'. I'll take it I guess. I'm sorry, but if you want to get anything done around here to make the gameplay experience better you have to be a belligerent asshole. People hate change.

By your own post it looks like these things are related, even if you don't think they should be.

I think your last point has some merit and is something that should absolutely be discussed at the PoR. I'd suggest bringing this up in any of those discussions in which you're directly involved.

However, being a "belligerent asshole" on the forums - at least in most contexts - will generally run you afoul of the CoC, the stated purpose of which is to

empower the Continuing Committee (CC) and all players of the Star Trek CCGs to cultivate a forum environment where discussion is free, fruitful, and fun.

The problem with belligerent assholery is that it goes directly against the stated purpose of the CoC.

Now I'm not trying to make this just about you, but since that's how you perceived it, I know you're capable of effecting change within the bounds of the CoC.

Look at your taking a knee thread from late 2017. You were civil, direct, and made no bones about where you stood on an issue and what you were willing to do (or in that case NOT do) unless the problem as you saw it was rectified.

THAT is a great way to voice your opinion and state where you stand that gets attention in a positive way.

Maybe the whole time you were typing that civil post you were nerd raging on the inside and barely holding it together -- but the point is you held it together.

FWIW I've been reading your substantive points - all very well presented in a way to not trigger a Mod action - and definitely have some consideration for them. The dialog will continue, but so far I'm glad you're engaging and contributing to the conversation and I hope you will continue to do so, despite comments from others that you may not appreciate or find relevant.

[AllenGould]

You mean like people are just waiting on the rules to go away so they can be jerks? Lowest common denominator and all? I would posit some people might open up a little bit but it wouldn't become that.

Do you think spambots would go away if we stopped banning them?

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying for here. Could you actually say what you mean?

I can rephrase it, sure.

Most of this CoC conversation can be boiled down to "what John does shouldn't be against the rules". And there seems to be this misconception that everyone else, even when things get heated, would still act as if the rules are in place, even if they weren't. Put another way - John would act out, but the rest of the boards would look exactly the same, just with More John.

I would argue that there are plenty of people who do dial back the rhetoric, because there *is* a rule, and actually respect that they agreed to follow the rules when they joined. And when that rule is removed, and John starts poking people again for whatever reason he has this month, there's no reason to believe that people won't poke back. Which means you're going to see a lot more John-behavior since it'll now be an acceptable method of trying to make a point.

Or to use a more American metaphor - if football started allowing punching because the Great Quarterback likes punching people, does anyone believe that all the other teams will continue not to punch people?

[KillerB]

By your own post it looks like these things are related, even if you don't think they should be.

The problem with belligerent assholery is that it goes directly against the stated purpose of the CoC.

You'll have to link those posts. I'm sure I've responded to people (which I shouldn't do in a CoC discussion thread), but I never brought it up (i'm sure nerd forensics will prove if I'm wrong).

I want a world where I don't have to be a belligerent asshole on the boards. Hopefully a proper set of CC Bylaws will provide that. When there are proper mechanisms to reorganize failed hierarchies in the CC I'll limit my posts to HoF ballots and telling Nasty Nate he's wrong about Design.

I can't promise no asshole, but we can remove the belligerent part.

[KillerB]

THAT is a great way to voice your opinion and state where you stand that gets attention in a positive way.

A recall everyone in Da Gr0up Chat begging my not to go through with that plan....

[Armus]

THAT is a great way to voice your opinion and state where you stand that gets attention in a positive way.

A recall everyone in Da Gr0up Chat begging my not to go through with that plan....

Yeah. You were right on that one. The rest of us were wrong.

[KillerB]

Most of this CoC conversation can be boiled down to "what John does shouldn't be against the rules". And there seems to be this misconception that everyone else, even when things get heated, would still act as if the rules are in place, even if they weren't. Put another way - John would act out, but the rest of the boards would look exactly the same, just with More John.

I would argue that there are plenty of people who do dial back the rhetoric, because there *is* a rule, and actually respect that they agreed to follow the rules when they joined. And when that rule is removed, and John starts poking people again for whatever reason he has this month, there's no reason to believe that people won't poke back. Which means you're going to see a lot more John-behavior since it'll now be an acceptable method of trying to make a point.

Or to use a more American metaphor - if football started allowing punching because the Great Quarterback likes punching people, does anyone believe that all the other teams will continue not to punch people?

Allen, when I go on nerd rampages it's for a cause. Somebody fucked up. Whether I'm right or wrong, it's for a purpose.

I'm not going to tolerate a narrative where somebody is posting 'Is SPEED dead?' and I'm responding "I win with speed you fucking loser!" or any non-CC/CoC related stuff.

Like I said to Brian, bylaws hopefully solve most of that. I also trust Sykes enough to solve most of this issue. If anyone is a 'everything is fine, why do you have to create drama' person then of course they don't like me. But that doesn't give them the right to say I don't have a right to be part of the community.

I'll submit I created none of the havoc the past few weeks. The original violation was a flippant remark about somebody nerd job. Then while talking 'Dad is banned again from the nerd boards' at the Corbett dinner table Connor posted decided to post the HoF Ballot. Then a good amount of people got triggered. I'm not saying I don't have a part in all of this, or I'm some kind of innocent. I'm saying I'm not responsible when people choose to get all worked up over message board rules.

[prylardurden]

I can rephrase it, sure.

Most of this CoC conversation can be boiled down to "what John does shouldn't be against the rules". And there seems to be this misconception that everyone else, even when things get heated, would still act as if the rules are in place, even if they weren't. Put another way - John would act out, but the rest of the boards would look exactly the same, just with More John.

I would argue that there are plenty of people who do dial back the rhetoric, because there *is* a rule, and actually respect that they agreed to follow the rules when they joined. And when that rule is removed, and John starts poking people again for whatever reason he has this month, there's no reason to believe that people won't poke back. Which means you're going to see a lot more John-behavior since it'll now be an acceptable method of trying to make a point.

Or to use a more American metaphor - if football started allowing punching because the Great Quarterback likes punching people, does anyone believe that all the other teams will continue not to punch people?

I see, you are making it about something else (a tactic i have seen you use multiple times before). Whatever, your perogative.

Maybe I have more faith in the community than you do. Sure, some people would probably offend others (likely very few), others might "loosen up" a bit, but a lot of people would probably stay the way they are currently without that rule in place.

I'm actually kinda sad you have that view of the community.

[KillerB]

I'm actually kinda sad you have that view of the community.

Ben has stated before that this discussion has 'brought out the worse in everyone'. So it's a tough sell to convince me that clearing up some CoC rules would lead to this nastier, hostile message board.

[AllenGould]

I see, you are making it about something else (a tactic i have seen you use multiple times before). Whatever, your perogative.

You asked me to clarify, I made my point a different way. Did you want me to just copy/paste what I said before? Maybe in bold and a larger font?

I'm actually kinda sad you have that view of the community.

You can be sad. I'll be pragmatic. This has become so routine there's probably a Hallmark movie with this plot.

[prylardurden]

I see, you are making it about something else (a tactic i have seen you use multiple times before). Whatever, your perogative.

You asked me to clarify, I made my point a different way. Did you want me to just copy/paste what I said before? Maybe in bold and a larger font?

I'm actually kinda sad you have that view of the community.

You can be sad. I'll be pragmatic. This has become so routine there's probably a Hallmark movie with this plot.

You posted about spambots prior. That's why I wanted an actual question. I'm surprised you can't make that distinction without resorting to sarcasm.

As far as pragmatic, iffy. If I may ask, is it possible that you have become jaded by the "keyboard internet courage" that a lot of people get?

If that is most of your interaction with the people here, I can see why you may have that viewpoint. Somethings just never translate well online (I know I have had a few times with that happening). I have met a lot of the people here in person (sorry, Aussies, just haven't been able to make that happen yet) and I can't really think of anyone I wouldn't hang out with again (granted, they may not share that opinion - can't speak to that).

As for your knowledge of the Hallmark programming, I usually don't take in that particular genre so I can't speak to that.

[AllenGould]

You posted about spambots prior. That's why I wanted an actual question. I'm surprised you can't make that distinction without resorting to sarcasm.

Yes, in response to the idea that everyone will just naturally get along if we just ask nicely. (In hindsight, I should have asked for an example of a large online community that has accomplished this, but then there'd be crickets.)

As far as pragmatic, iffy. If I may ask, is it possible that you have become jaded by the "keyboard internet courage" that a lot of people get?

There's plenty of nice people around. But it just takes one bad actor to chase them away. That's two decades of experience talking, both online and in the real world.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

There's plenty of nice people around. But it just takes one bad actor to chase them away. That's two decades of experience talking, both online and in the real world.

[prylardurden]

You posted about spambots prior. That's why I wanted an actual question. I'm surprised you can't make that distinction without resorting to sarcasm.

Yes, in response to the idea that everyone will just naturally get along if we just ask nicely. (In hindsight, I should have asked for an example of a large online community that has accomplished this, but then there'd be crickets.)

As far as pragmatic, iffy. If I may ask, is it possible that you have become jaded by the "keyboard internet courage" that a lot of people get?

There's plenty of nice people around. But it just takes one bad actor to chase them away. That's two decades of experience talking, both online and in the real world.

Everyone will just get along nicely? Every family/group/workplace/etc. will have dustups on occasion. If you have had the luck to never encounter a place with that, I envy you. For the *most part*, this community does that. Yes, occasionally something happens but that tends to be the exception and not the rule.

You never made the case for chase them away. You made the case for "everyone would just be horrible".