Important: The tag titles

[DSX93]

If this is your response, then I would recommend rereading what @Malkavia actually wrote.

The minor point that Malk is making is that, like, even though basically all of us here agree on the important bit -- that the tag belt has been held for far too long -- Winner might just not go along with it. That's not some giant objective sin, and none of your or my rights are being abrogated by it. It's just a site admin doing the thing he wants with his site, and even though we all think that's a problem, we can just RP somewhere else if we dislike the decision. And honestly that goes for any site decision, like Polish said a lot of times there's no easy call like there might be in this situation. If you disagree with how something goes, you move on if you can or you take your activity somewhere else if you can't move on. That's not controversial, I would hope.

The more important part, that I think you and everybody here should reread, is that if people are going to be really annoying, like one unrelated user DMing and badgering another unrelated user who doesn't want to talk to them, then subtweeting them on the forum, that's bad. Like @Bare said, conversation both here and on the Discord has generally been very productive and mature. And like Malk suggested, that's actually a really good improvement on most site policy conversations! @ThatPolishDude mentioned something along those lines: Lots of times people genuinely do get disrespectful when they're mad about how something is going on the site, and this time I think people have been pretty reasonable. People who aren't doing that should stop doing it. That's, like, the bulk of Malk's message and I wouldn't read deeper into it than that.

TL;DR most people are chill, keep being chill

I left that out of the quote because that wasn't pertinent to my point. I was talking specifically about that implication. If the rules aren't going to be equally enforced in one area, then where will it end? And if everybody in a space has an issue with something, it shouldn't be left alone because an admin is the subject. If anything, there should be MORE scrutiny specifically because it involves an admin.

I'm not even talking about the tag title situation here. Again, this is in general terms. It might not be affecting you or me specifically, but that doesn't mean that it's not bothering anyone, period. And if another issue arises, it COULD be one that affects us.

"Move on or leave" shouldn't be the guideline when it does.

[FreestylePoet]

Again, you're missing the point. You're making an argument for why things should change, to somebody who thinks things should change. The point Malk is trying to make, which I agree with, is that even if every single person here strongly agreed that things should go a certain way, we don't have some abstract moral entitlement for it to go that way. Like, it's an ERP forum, we're not making a moral stand for anything real here.

The reason this is relevant to all the other things in Malk's post, and the reason it can't go unsaid, is because of things that Desk and Malk and Polish have mentioned. People have a way of acting like dicks when they disagree with how the site is run, and it's because of that sense of entitlement.

If this doesn't sound like something you do, great, then that post isn't talking to you. Like Bare said, most people have been pretty good about it this time. Nobody is saying this issue isn't real or that it should be ignored, the point is just to be careful with how we're looking at it, and not to let that get in the way of productive conversation.

[DSX93]

You've missed my point. If every single person agrees on an issue, and the authority disregards their voices, that's on the authority, not everyone else. What makes forums work is trust that everyone will be held to the same standard. This is not entitlement. And if that's not being done, then what's the point?

[ThatPolishDude]

My man, you are arguing with a point no one made. We all agree something should be done but we are walking in a circle. And i asure you that winer also knows something should be done but us piling on him cause he is a big man here doesn't make it any easier, if anything that line of action has been pushing him away from the forum.

So let's just chill a little, cause right now we are arguing past eachother

[FreestylePoet]

Okay, great, I don't disagree at all with you. You're preaching to the choir. What I'm telling you is that, if you're framing it as a response to Malk, it's really not.

I will tell you what the post you're trying to reply to said, to clarify any misunderstandings and to stop us from talking past each other:

You aren't entitled to have people (especially decision makers) agree with you, even if you're completely in the right. Sometimes people just see things another way.
When users in the past have felt that kind of entitlement, they've acted like assholes to people who disagree with them.
You shouldn't be an asshole.

That's all malk said, there was 0 content in the post saying anything else, and it's not possible to read anything else into it. That is the entirety of her message.

Malk is posting this to one person and I'm not party to what happened there, but the idea is an important reminder anyway. If it's not a reminder that you personally need, because you are one of the people talking about this in a good way, that's great and her post isn't to you.

[DSX93]

I still believe that I wasn't understood here, but I'll drop the matter.

[CaptainL]

I'm chiming in to say that, yes, Winner is the admin, and yes, Winner has the final say - but that does not make him or his actions above criticism. It is hard for people to "chill" when they are in an environment where they do not feel their voices are heard, or that there is a double standard in how rules are applied to them versus toward the admin. We have seen numerous prominent users, myself included, distance themselves from the site or outright leave in recent times over this exact issue, and this would not have happened if title reigns were enforced in a fair and consistent fashion. To these users, this is clearly a problem that exists, and will continue to exist. Winner is a user, but we are users too, and we do not feel our voices are being heard or taken seriously. Ignoring the issue and pretending it didn't happen isn't going to solve the underlying feelings of mistrust in the userbase.

These issues can and do negatively impact the health of a community. LAW was founded because people felt as though they were not being respected or taken seriously on AFW, and a new community was formed because so many people left and wanted to go elsewhere. We have evidence of what can happen in circumstances like these, and I feel it is valuable that this evidence be weighed. Dismissing users as being unable to be pleased is not something that builds trust or fosters a community. Maybe they're in the wrong for objecting or maybe they're not - I will admit I myself miss this site and ask myself sometimes if I'm doing a disservice by leaving - but it's undeniably true that there is friction between a nonzero percentage of LAW users and the administration.

I am not asking for Winner to immediately surrender the titles, or to change anything about what he is doing - I only wish that people are cognizant of the place that users' feelings are coming from. The issue is not even him holding onto the titles for as long as he has, it's that he has taken action against other users for less. I would have no issue with Winner holding the titles as long as he has if he had not taken action against other users for less. Similarly, I would have no issue with Winner taking action against other users if he held himself to the same standards. But I do think that users have the right to be unhappy with the fact that he does not hold himself to the same standards.

I am not looking to start an argument, so I'll leave things at that. But to summarize, I believe it's a perspective that is worth hearing and worth considering.

[Ichi]

I'd also prefer to not see anyone turning this discussion into a procedural slugfest by insisting that this matter should've been brought up privately—they were brought up privately beforehand, and I know for a fact that some have been given reasons to actively doubt that private conversation was viable. Talking in private before going public is a solid heuristic, but it is also one that can be weaponized to derail discourse.

You say "attempts at talking in private have been made."

Ok, here’s my experience of private talks. You once spent several drunken hours in my DMs trying to manipulate, badger, and bully me into sharing details of private conversations with Winner after I’d explicitly told you to leave me alone about it — in large part because you had nothing to do with the situation in question.

Yes, that was extremely wrong of me, and I very much regret that. It was not prudent or justifiable in the slightest. You have a right to be upset at that. And you're not wrong in your criticisms about how I've gone about things.

I'm not going to lie and deny that I'm a flawed messenger. But it would be unreasonable to dismiss any public discourse regarding Winner as invalid just because one messenger is flawed—as seen in this thread, Winner has had effects on other people and has sparked genuine frustration (regardless of whether or not he is personally culpable).

Moreover, your "experience of private talks" is neither complete nor representative. Nor does it excuse Winner's shortcomings themselves.

When I mentioned private talks, I was not referring to what you were mentioning. I was referring to the fact that people have brought up the tag team title to Winner in private, only for it to (allegedly) be met with frivolous, bad faith excuses. And for Winner to make a vague promise of dropping the tag titles soon in another user's DMs, only for that to not even materialize in the slightest.

I'm also referring to a number of private talks that users (apart from myself) have had in which Winner came across poorly. Deskfan45, in particular, had very salient reasons for choosing the public route, given what he had experienced.

Yes, there are very salient criticisms to be had of how both myself and others have pursued matters. Those matters are relevant and worth consideration. However, they are not entirely material to the criticisms regarding Winner—and, while you aren't wrong in bringing it up, doing so unecessarily broadened the scope of this discussion.

I'd also like to make this clear: What you quoted me on was NOT an attempt to justify going public. It was SPECIFICALLY an attempt to address an argument that Winner has implicitly made before. In his forum reply to BearhugGoddess, he expressed gripes about people not talking to him in private first, without regards for how some people did not view that as a viable option. He has echoed a similar sentiment in at least one other place as well. I view such sentiments, in Winner's case, as being more of attempt at discrediting critics than good faith engagement—something which I wanted to avoid a repeat of.

To reiterate, no, I wasn't trying to justify going public—it's a messy topic that I believe has no good answer. My statement was meant to preempt ill-faith engagement that I suspected was a possibility.

[Ichi]

My man, you are arguing with a point no one made. We all agree something should be done but we are walking in a circle. And i asure you that winer also knows something should be done but us piling on him cause he is a big man here doesn't make it any easier, if anything that line of action has been pushing him away from the forum.

So let's just chill a little, cause right now we are arguing past eachother

That's a salient point. Pragmatically speaking, there were various issues with how people approached Winner regarding matters. Those approaches made matters worse.

At the same time, I think Winner—as an authority figure dealing with sensitive interpersonal matters—had a duty to act better. Or, if not an outright duty, a pragmatic impetus.

As angry as I am with Winner's engagement towards myself and others, I'll concede that I am culpable for how I've approached matters. I'll also concede that I've made things worse at times, and have almost certainly caused him grief without accomplishing anything positive. But, as evidenced by this thread and various rumblings throughout the community, Winner's actions have been markedly imperfect and have caused harm (see CaptainL's post for a quick example).

[The_Soul_of_Kia]

Jesus christ this thread.

Maybe having titles at all is bad thing on these forums. They really seem to cause nothing but problems and hurt feelings. Double standards and long reigns that dont end properly, arguments and political bullshit. Its like you want the politics of WCW era Hogan to be part of your rp experience on purpose.

Also, you realize this conversation is pointless when Winners never around to do anything, right? If its causing such a ruckus, have the mods make the decision to vacate the belt, and move on from there. Otherwise your entirely hamstrung if the one guy making decisions is never around to make said decisions.

DSX's entire point was that fair treatment for all should be seen as the standard for forums. It was in response to one bolded line. How ya'll missed that and made it an argument, ive no idea.

This is why I stay out of title stuff here. Good luck figuring out this ridiculously stupid mess. Hope ya'll come up with a solution that helps, but I have serious doubts there's enough maturity and sense here for that to be possible.


Peace out