It's time for some disobedience.

I don't agree with you at all about that. Many have posted in this thread who cannot be considered trolls. You really think Packard and Async are trolling? People are not outraged by the specifics, but by the concept, which to my mind is antithetical to the idea behind the Red Room. A single thread split is not a crisis, but the idea that such splits should happen as a matter of policy? I see that as an existential threat.

Just as an aside, I'm not advocating anything. If nothing changes, I'm perfectly fine with it. If the RR is modified, I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm pretty much just here to put tab A into slot B when asked to do so.

I will say that I think if we started splitting the "derp" posts, it would drastically increase the work load for everyone on staff, and a guideline would have to be made, and that sounds like more complexity added to a simple system.

As I said prior (as well), I do like the GR idea.

I'll sell no whine before it's time, dear sir.

Anyhoo, I don't think it was a fuck up. To me, a fuck up has to break the board. This didn't break the board, it disgruntled the regulars, and that doesn't take much.
The decision didn't bother me, and if he returns it to how it was, that doesn't bother me either. If the guys upstairs say "do this," I do. That's part of my job, for which I do not get paid (though I am asking for a 15% raise).

At this point, I think what can be said, has been said. So we'll just have to wait and see what the results will be.

That is simply not true. The determination was made in the Clyde situation.

I feel like I'm repeating myself so let me try rephrasing. Threads have been split in the past. Most notably the Clyde situation. People didn't have a problem with that.

This situation happened along similar lines. What is the difference? Packard has said the Clyde situation was 'extreme' but what constitutes extreme? If we can't come to some kind of understanding of when it is allowed and when not, it will just be a judgment call moving forward and we risk a repeat of this situation.

Now that is part of the issue. The other is that people participating in threads get frustrated when they feel people have completely shitted up a discussion they were having (see O2C and Paladin) if splitting is off the table is their only option to just abandon the convo they were having, and to try and start again? While that worked with the Nova thread are we gonna sticky every do-over thread?

I'm serious when I say I am not wedded to any one solution, but I'm also not going to sit back and pretend there is no problem.

Why are you saying something now, and not when the exact same thing was done when Clyde derailed a thread? Is it b/c the shitstorm is bigger?

You seem wedded to the idea that there should be a solution, which I think is the problem. You have made an incorrect diagnosis regarding the Red Room, which leads you to think there is a problem that doesn't exist.

You do yourself a disfavor by repeating this non-equivalence. It's already been explained by a few people, but the Clyde thing was a single poster going off the rails, not a general transition in the conversation involving many.

There is a problem, O2C reacted to, Paladin reacted to it. Chris came back and said it a problem (wonder why he's gone?), Forbin said he looked forward to the splittings (b/c it would keep garamet from ruining everything IIRC), Evenflow's said it's a problem. Other's who haven't spoken up but have liked my comments think it is a problem. People I've invited to join and have checked the board out said it's a problem. People I've invited back have said it's a problem.

Whether you like it or not, people think there is a problem.

Now, just b/c there is a problem doesn't mean there has to be a policy solution. There might be a technical solution, or a community one, or a mix. Who knows, but sitting there There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem, isn't going to get you anywhere.

So when you've got the time, go back reread my question and see if you can come up with any ideas.

The other is that people participating in threads get frustrated when they feel people have completely shitted up a discussion they were having (see O2C and Paladin) if splitting is off the table is their only option to just abandon the convo they were having, and to try and start again? While that worked with the Nova thread are we gonna sticky every do-over thread?

Anc isn't alone in thinking that there's a problem.

Now you're disagreeing with your buttboy? For months now, we've watched you prop up and shill for Liet, Dinner, garamet--anyone on Your Side, no matter how discredited they were.

Here's the thing. Throwing your support behind a poster with no credibility doesn't shore up their credibility, it just removes any that you might have had.

You know the most enjoyable part of this whole sad, miserable affair? For years now, you guys have diligently made your bed. Now you get to lie in it. I only regret that all the rest of us have to endure it too.

I dont think it's a huge problem worth remaking the red room over, I link it specifically to the activity of one poster. If we started splitting threads every time one gets derailed I'm not gonna be happy.

Owners disagreeing? But Eliteforge!

I've gone back and re-read the "winds of change" thread and allow me to say, El Chup was downright prophetic. He understood exactly what would happen with Anc.

(Notes in passing that Volpone has finally gone off the deep end.)

I disagree for three reasons:

Starting a new thread with a new focus is not abandoning the conversation you've been having; it's continuing it. Nothing is lost.

Nor is it about "trying" to start again; it's accomplishing a continuation, with or without stronger moderation depending on the room you choose.

The Nova thread didn't work because it was stickied. It was stickied because the topic was of likely interest to everyone, just as a RR thread would have been if it had been the main thread on Nova's situation.

You're a fucking idiot. I really pity you and your two dimensional mind.

No one is talking about that.

Of course you're not going to telegraph your intentions ahead of time.

I think the question people need to start asking is what Ancalagon's aganda is here. He insists that there is a BIG PROBLEM that needs to be fixed, and is using this phantom menace to push "solutions."

What's his agenda? What is this building towards?

I've heard some rumblings that Ancalagon may not be willing to give up his superowner status and will seek to force out the co-owners. If this is true, what does he intend on doing with the site?

That's nice. at:

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

Even though I don't think Ancalagon is in the right on this one, you are still an idiot. The most telling thing you've ever done was stepping down from staff almost immediately after being asked to step up to the plate. It made it clear to anyone who was paying attention that you were more interested in telling everyone how bad of a job they were doing rather than trying to improve things.

Dayton is not the omnipresent force of evil some pretend. He's someone who has figured out how to manipulate his haters. And they love nothing better than to devote page after page to expressing frothing contempt.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Dayton is the greatest troll in the history of WF, so good that he gets his victims to troll themselves using only the slightest provocation.

You're so full of shit I'm surprised it's not dribbling all over your keyboard.

Mistake #1 of Anc's administration - elevating this prancing cock-hungry homosexual to a leadership position and giving his pedo-bronie group safe haven over the objections of numerous people.

If it wasn't for John this place probably would be dead as a doornail. Both myself and O2C have been busy with real life shit, and John has seriously stepped up to the plate to help keep this place going. In fact, I don't think I've logged into the admin control panel in a couple months.

The existential threat is not only in the policy, but in the total unwillingness of Anc, Paladin and John to even consider that the rest of us might have something useful to say on it. To them, we are just troublemakers. (And you, as one of the owners, are just as much of a troublemaker, because you are agreeing with the majority that it was a poor decision. )

In my mind, the staff not being willing to listen to what the users want is more of a problem than the policy itself. Free enterprise is fine, but any free enterprise that does not provide a service that the users want is a free enterprise that is free to go under. There just isn't any other way around it. All the talk of "The owners can do what they want" will change nothing in that dynamic.

Flashlight is announcing to the room that this spat has moved on to phase two, where we stop talking about the original incident, and instead engage in fantasy and hyperbole. I suspect the point has been made, and he knows it, so he's trying to desperately keep things going by poking John.

John is deserving of being taken down a peg right now.

You must be reading different threads than I b/c not only are we listening but also engaging, asking questions and seeking input. I don't know how much more we can do.

Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking. Do make sure you've got your pitchfork and your torch.

I don't have much to add here because no one seems to want to even talk about it beyond voicing anger. I (and Anc) have asked what exactly there is to be angry about and I haven't seen much response beyond "because we don't like it!" Gul said it was a disruption of the conversation and I disagree. The edited content had dominated the last 2-3 pages of the thread and was all still together in the new thread. If disrupting the conversation is the standard, then what about the disruption to the conversation ON-TOPIC that occurred when 2-3 pages of the all-too-common name-calling derailed the thread?

For myself, I *have* heard you. It's clear that any real conversation here can and will be hijacked by dueling internet personas. But I've heard all the Dayton trolling and anti-Dayton bashing. I've heard Castle and garamet do the "I know you are but what am I" routine for 28 straight posts. It's so very, very old.

There are lots of interesting, important, entertaining, thought-provoking things to talk about. Even some we can argue passionately about. THAT is the value of the Red Room: uninhibited discussion. If it's just freedom to shit up every thread and to endlessly troll and flame? Forget it; this place is going to evaporate. We won't get many new members and the ones that are here are going to get bored of it sooner or later.

For me, it's sooner.