A more serious SYM thread (no spam)

[Ravager]

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]Also, as it pertains to inside or running jokes between older members, what do you expect them to do? It's nothing personal against you if you weren;t around back then. When I talk to DW or Weasel or anyone else and talk about old times, that's just what it is. Same as everyone else does. That doesn't mean it's a concous effort to exclude anyone.
[/QUOTE]

I'd like to point out regarding my previous example of what happened in the HC, after the comment was made about things being better in previous times (by using an example of previous members and what they did), I asked about these people and was fobbed off, it was said that it was the point that I wasn't around during the old times and thus I wouldn't know what had happened. Nor, could I measure up to those previous standards.
That was deliberate exclusion.

I think sometimes that an explanation is required, particularly if a newer member asks about a previous event that happened before their time.
Surely that is only common courtesy?

[Bloodstalker]

[QUOTE=Ravager]I'd like to point out regarding my previous example of what happened in the HC, after the comment was made about things being better in previous times (by using an example of previous members and what they did), I asked about these people and was fobbed off, it was said that it was the point that I wasn't around during the old times and thus I wouldn't know what had happened. Nor, could I measure up to those previous standards.
That was deliberate exclusion.

I think sometimes that an explanation is required, particularly if a newer member asks about a previous event that happened before their time.
Surely that is only common courtesy?[/QUOTE]


First...stop editing you post that I'm trying to quote so that I have to go back and work twice as hard

Second, I wasn't aware of the incident you mentioned, but I have heard the same comment as far as the inside jokes and so on before so I was commenting in a more general nature. I wanted to make it clear, at least on my part and I think for most of the people I know, that it's not an intentional attempt to exclude anyone.

And yes, if you ask a question you have every right to expect an answer, or at the very least to be treated with an amount of courtesy. As far as the statement that you couldn;t measure up, that's the whole point I was trying to make in my last post. It's one reason I cringe when I see my name used as a reference as to how to post. People shouldn;t be expected to be like someone else.

[Ravager]

Sorry about that. Technical problem.

This is the incident:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... 6&page=882 (Post 13215 onwards)
I may not have asked about Fas as I thought I had, but there was definite exclusion there.
I also acknowledge that there were apologies, but that doesn't mean the situation didn't arise in the first place and I see this thread as at least a part rehash.
It does not give me happy memories.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Ravager]This is the incident:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... 6&page=882 (Post 13215 onwards)
I may not have asked about Fas as I thought I had, but there was definite exclusion there.[/quote]

I've got one question for you. What did you mean by, "Are you Fable in disguise," referring (unless I'm misunderstanding you) to a post that talked about the so-called "good old days" on GB? I've never felt that way or stated anything along those lines. As far as I'm concerned, GB has always lived in the good old days, because those are made by the people who stick in there and take an active part in the forums as-they-are. I really like a good discussion in the more serious threads, but I'm sure this would apply just as well to those people who spam. When the serious types, like myself, are too busy or ill, that side of the equation fades, and the same applies to spamming. But when everybody's taking part, the golden age returns. In truth, it never left.

As far as Fas was concerned, if you'd asked in a separate SYM thread--or if anyone asked--I would have been perfectly happy to respond. But then, so would a dozen people that would have made up fanciful replies. You weren't excluded there, from what I can tell. It's just that people didn't realize how much that answer meant to you, and in the usual way spam is flung in these threads, simply missed answering. I don't honestly see anything exclusive about it. If it happens again, just pick up a very big titanium-headed hammer, and let it fall on the nearest spammer. Restate your question. Repeat as necessary.

[Hill-Shatar]

A post for people with alternate viewing styles who do not want to surf through the HC to find it, a direct link to the post and onwards [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=686179#post686179"]here[/url].

[Bloodstalker]

[QUOTE=fable]I've got one question for you. What did you mean by, "Are you Fable in disguise," referring (unless I'm misunderstanding you) to a post that talked about the so-called "good old days" on GB? I've never felt that way or stated anything along those lines. As far as I'm concerned, GB has always lived in the good old days, because those are made by the people who stick in there and take an active part in the forums. I really like a good discussion in the more serious threads, but I'm sure this would apply just as well to those people who spam.

As far as Fas was concerned, if you'd asked in a separate SYM thread--or if anyone asked--I would have been perfectly happy to respond. But then, so would a dozen people that would have made up fanciful replies. You weren't excluded there, from what I can tell. It's just that people didn't realize how much that answer meant to you, and in the usual way spam is flung in these threads, simply missed answering. I don't honestly see anything exclusive about it. If it happens again, just pick up a very big titanium-headed hammer, and let it fall on the nearest spammer. Restate your question. Repeat as necessary. [/QUOTE]


I'm still trying to find a single member in that conversation I don't consider new.

Does that mean I've been here to long? Cause I was seriously thinking about this discussion in terms of older members being people who have been here for a lot longer that a year or so. Oh God, I AM ancient

[Ravager]

I've got one question for you. What did you mean by, "Are you Fable in disguise," referring (unless I'm misunderstanding you) to a post that talked about the so-called "good old days" on GB? I've never felt that way or stated anything along those lines. As far as I'm concerned, GB has always lived in the good old days, because those are made by the people who stick in there and take an active part in the forums as-they-are. I really like a good discussion in the more serious threads, but I'm sure this would apply just as well to those people who spam. When the serious types, like myself, are too busy or ill, that side of the equation fades, and the same applies to spamming.

My apologies. At the time I was jokingly referring to giles attitude, that his post there seemed to exude the attitude that he was somehow in charge.

But when everybody's taking part, the golden age returns. In truth, it never left.

I'm glad you feel that way.

You weren't excluded there, from what I can tell. It's just that people didn't realize how much that answer meant to you, and in the usual way spam is flung in these threads, simply missed answering.

That's true, but in the most part I mean to point out the attitudes I've linked in. That they would drop in a name and then just say I wouldn't know before proceeding to set out their own views on what spam should and shouldn't be like.
That seems to run contrary to some of the things Luis and Ik have posted here, though they were involved in the original debate in the Heathen Citadel.

Does that mean I've been here to long? Cause I was seriously thinking about this discussion in terms of older members being people who have been here for a lot longer that a year or so. Oh God, I AM ancient

IMO some people may distance themselves from who they see as new regardless of how long they have been here. And this I see as part of the problem.
For myself, I always try to be welcoming, evertime I answer someone's first post I welcme them to GB and always try to act politely and courteously. This is the best way to get the same behaviour in return.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Ravager]I'd like to point out regarding my previous example of what happened in the HC, after the comment was made about things being better in previous times (by using an example of previous members and what they did), I asked about these people and was fobbed off, it was said that it was the point that I wasn't around during the old times and thus I wouldn't know what had happened. Nor, could I measure up to those previous standards.
That was deliberate exclusion.
<snip>
[/quote]

Judging an entier "group" (or rather sterotype of a group, as it seems) of forum members from one incident, or even a few, with a couple of posters, might also not be the best way to go about it either, declairing that there is "exclusion" and elitisme on the board.
Every poster is indeed different, but we have one thing in common - and that is we are all real people here on our own free time and of our free will. Sometimes, as in real life, you'll get brushed off by some people, and you will, again as in real life, not find the answer you are asking for. Lableling "oldies" as a group thusly, as people who exclude newbies based on it, is just plain wrong and unfounded.

[QUOTE=Ravager]
I think sometimes that an explanation is required, particularly if a newer member asks about a previous event that happened before their time.
Surely that is only common courtesy?[/QUOTE]

From what I've seen throughout the *multitude* of threads I read through almost every single day for years, then much is actually explained when people ask about "inside jokes". Again you might have a couple of examples to the different, but a couple of examples does not make a standard.

[ik911]

About the discussion in the HC and at Ravager: You seem to be pointing at me and giles for being the badguys, but we were only saying what some people thought. But that's fine with me, because when saying such things, I expect some negative response.

However, you have to understand that we never wished to scare anyone off or punish anyone.

And I think that's all there is to say about that single discussion...

@TonyM: To speak minds is a positive side-effect. To clear the mud is the main goal. The fact that you can't think of any solutions that might come off this doesn't mean there aren't any results. Calling this a self-pleasuring pseudo-intellectual discussion gets you on the wrong track and seems rather flamesque.

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=ik911]
@TonyM: To speak minds is a positive side-effect. To clear the mud is the main goal. The fact that you can't think of any solutions that might come off this doesn't mean there aren't any results. Calling this a self-pleasuring pseudo-intellectual discussion gets you on the wrong track and seems rather flamesque. [/QUOTE]

Sorry didn't mean anything by the comment but I was just toying with the idea (which I thought may have held some water, and still do) to see your response: I didn't truly mean anything by it. I found the actual idea kind of funny but if I'm wrong then hey, my bad. It certainly was NOT AT ALL meant to be a flame, so sorry if it felt that way.

Anyway, back on topic.

Xandax is right that it isn't fair to judge the 'oldies', in fact the very presence of such an all-encompassing term may not be appropriate, on one isolated incident. It really isn't fair to judge the older posters as a group at all, but sometimes it's hard not to. You also have to look at it from Rav's perspective too that he felt he was being marginalized for being a new poster (and part of whatever the problem was and still is) and, seeing this same conversation crop up again understandably made him defensive for us newbs' sake (he sympathized with us, knows what it feels like). I'm glad he did bring up the incident because it allows for us newer guys to learn more about this situation that apparently has existed for quite some time: it's hard to argue about the past when you don't even know what it is.

Fiona's comment I found, as usual, short, sweet, to the point: an important point too. Without the help of members there will be no new blood. I know I don't need to tell you all this (for the most part everyone here is great) but a little kindness goes a long way. There really isn't a point to this comment of mine other than to hopefully give all here some perspective (and I'm not preaching here): many have forgotten what it's like to be new but being a little proactive in terms of helping members out is the best way to keep SYM fun and interesting, not pushing for less spam or more intelligent comments.

[Aramant]

I don't know if this post will count as spam. If it does, oops I'm sorry. Anycats...

Tony's theory of this thread being a back door way to generate conversation in general is rather interesting, and the effect he assumes is actually true in my case. I've never been a particularly active browser of this forum, but since this thread popped up, I've been coming to check it many, many times a day. I woke up horrendously hung over this morning (which is the excuse I'll use for the ridiculously disjointed flow of what I'm typing here), and I've only been awake for two or three hours, but I've already checked this thread for updates six times. That might not seem like much for members of this forum, I don't know, but it's a lot for me.

There have been some comments about sweeping generalizations being applied unfairly to people, and I noticed that a lot of the terms being referred to are ones I think I was the first to use in this thread. I realize that everyone who's come before me isn't a snooty segregationist, and I didn't mean to suggest I thought that was the case. At the same time, however, "newbie" has been a stereotypical term tossed around by some people, and it is an equally unfair term. The use of the term suggests a belief that everyone that has arrived after a certain point is problematic. While the people using that term might not actually think as such, that's how it comes across in some cases. And that unfair generalization is why my other posts in this thread were as they were.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this post. I blame last night's libation. I guess the best summary I can make is as follows: this thread is ironic in that discussion about exclusion has made me feel included; I think the broad generalizations have caused some misunderstandings on both sides; and I shouldn't try to sound like I know what I'm talking about after a night of drinking.

[CM]

My views are generally the most controversial and my spelling is horrible so be warned when you read this. I have basically seen two issues with the way SYM is right now, from PM, MSN and other conversations.

1. The intolerance levels have risen. People no longer tolerate what they don't like. SYM was in the beginning and for years a place where everybody could fit in. That is no longer the case. Why? Because the more fun loving and people who wished to relaxed left and the more rigid stayed. Additionally those who stayed wished to maintain the status quo and not adapt.

2. SYM has become a far more serious place but added to that there is no freedom to express an opinion contrary to that held by the ones who inhabit these serious threads. This sadly is not an opinion i only hold but many others and the reason why some have left.

I am more than willing to name names if people want it.

To put it simply. SYM sucks because people are such rigid hardasses. It goes from closing spam threads for no logical reason whatsoever to the stifling of opinion on matters that are not held to be in agreement with certain people on SYM.

Ik poked the hive, i set it afire.

[dragon wench]

I am not sure how valid this is to the present discussion... but I was thinking back to when I first started posting in SYM.

I came over with a group of people from the BG2 forum, and we began our own thread.. called it "The Harem Tent." I won't dwell on the origins of the name here, anyone who is interested can look it up.

But, I recall that for some time most of us were a bit hesitant about posting in SYM. The tent was familiar territory. I also remember that some people, such as Waverly and Grunt, would ask us if we ever posted anywhere else in SYM
But slowly, yet surely, we did begin to post in SYM.. a lot, and I suspect those who encouraged us to do so, lived to regret it

It seems to me that this is not a great deal different to the way new members tend to congregate in the HC and SF.

That brings me to another point. To be honest, I have not followed the more recent "old" vs "new" tensions. Much like BS, I have looked at some members posts, those who joined around a year ago, and rubbing my eyes, I have wondered when they stopped being new
This is not meant to be disparaging towards newer members, it is more a reflection that I have been here way too long, and that, for me, the terms "old and "new," have different definitions and refer to different groups of people.
So, given how few people remain from the time I first joined, most of you are new in my eyes

Anyway, what I am really trying to say is that maybe older members should attempt more sensitivity (and yes, I do include myself here), and newer members should perhaps be less sensitive.

Let's remember we are all here to have fun, blow off steam, take part in discussions etc. So why not just do that, without worrying about who arrived when.

[CM]

Oh yes somethings to take into consideration:

1. The average of SYM has dropped from 30 something to 15 odd. So that is a very large difference.
2. Oldies have to be more sensitive and yes that does include you DW Doesn't include me though
3. People just need to be more tolerant, be it in serious threads or in spam threads. I have heard via msn and pms of people losing their tempers and stuff. I have been too busy with work, but just in general there have been far more flame orientated action in the past 6 months than we have had in years.

[Aegis]

As par usual, Fas has stated similarily reasoned thoughts that I hold, but did so in a much more blunt way. Ritualistically beating the topic over the head, if you will.

The notion of 'intolerance' is one that I have addressed many times, as I am sure some members will be able to attest to, both when I was a Moderator, as well as since I have become a regular member.

As for naming names, Fas. While I am sure I know who would come out of said listings, perhaps it is best to retain annonymity in this matter, least something be said which could be taken out of context, or considered an attack...

[Brynn]

No wonder the newbies are offended by this thread, but I do understand what Ikky is talking about and let me assure you that it's not against anyone.

I haven't dedicated hours to anylize the situation and find solutions for the problem (if there's any), but I do remember how it was when I came here... I opened the door of the Citadel and I immediately got smacked with a staff or what, then someone adopted a fire breathing dragon and soon I felt like home I never ever felt like I was a noob being "scorned" by the oldies, no, I almost got a toga as well Dunno why, it was fun and it felt good to spam with ppl who were there by that time. I praticipated in some serious threads too when I felt it neccessary, sometimes got bored by long and unnaturally detailed posts and left... I guess others would have been just as bored by the Citadel had they come there... Matter of taste, imho.

SYM is definitely not the same now, but I don't see it as "wrong" or the "downfall of SYM"... Just think about the... er... Dark Flames or what was it, Scayde, Ysh, DW and the rest, they are gone, too (though DW, thank god, remains ). I think it's inevitable when people come and go. People we call newbies now will form their own groups and threads and discussions in a way the are comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that. For me, there is no SYM wihout Luis, Ikky*, CM, and many others I liked to spam with - but that doesn't mean that newcomers cannot take our place and make SYM their "home".

I just feel sorry about that they can't feel as comfortable on SYM as I did when I came here

*and Ikky was just a lil' n00b when we were already "oldies" Which clearly proves that the time of your join date doesn't mean anything.

[Xandax]

A couple of notes to this in general:

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
2. SYM has become a far more serious place but added to that there is no freedom to express an opinion contrary to that held by the ones who inhabit these serious threads. This sadly is not an opinion i only hold but many others and the reason why some have left.<snip>
[/quote]

Unfounded from what I've seen on this board, and I think the root of the problem lay elsewhere.
Simply because people debate and requests information to back up anecdotal evidence or hearsay doesn't mean you can't express opinions and there is "no freedom" to do so, even if it is contrary to others. You'll just notice the fact that there are many people on this board who knows much about various things, and they will often present their view backed up with actual information. Thus what you might pervice as "no freedom to express an opinion contrary" is simply that such opinions are "ignored" or countered due to no factual information.
This is something which also happens in the real world, and as all other things in cyperspace, it is only a reflection of the real world, and that is not just in SYM - but I see it all over the Internet, and it has nothing to do with "expressing ones opinion".

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
I am more than willing to name names if people want it.
<snip>[/quote]

I'm sure - but that would have no place in this thread at all.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
To put it simply. SYM sucks because people are such rigid hardasses. It goes from closing spam threads for no logical reason whatsoever <snip>[/quote]

No thread is closed for "no logical reason whatsoever". And if you feel that way, there is always the option to contact Buck Satan (afterall, he is the one who sets the guidelines for the moderator staff), or the moderator(s) in question for an explanation.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=Aegis]As for naming names, Fas. While I am sure I know who would come out of said listings, perhaps it is best to retain annonymity in this matter, least something be said which could be taken out of context, or considered an attack...[/QUOTE]

Agreed completely. Names shouldnt be spoken, posts shouldnt be pointed - this is no witch hunt, is a discussion about SYM, and what we think is wrong.

[QUOTE=Xandax]You'll just notice the fact that there are many people on this board who knows much about various things, and they will often present their view backed up with actual information.[/QUOTE]

Maybe its not about being actual information, but the way things get posted. Sometimes writing styles can be harsh and offensive to those without the same ammount of education, and that's the reason we should value good teachers far more than we do.
In fact I like the science based answers, and I dont struggle trying to defeat them at the boards (I mostly lurk at serious discussions nowadays). But I read them, and I think that the different points of views (even after the scientific truth has been revealed) are very interesting.

I guess people should be encouraged to post their unscientific views too, despite the fact that the actual information has been found, for purposes of discussion.

[Aegis]

@Luis: That second quote comes from Xan, not me

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=Aegis]@Luis: That second quote comes from Xan, not me [/QUOTE]

Thanks, Aegis, fixed