Tweet
disclaimer: the title of the thread is meant as a joke. if you didnt find it funny please consider a silly atempt for some humour in these strange days...
From: NEKIRA Apr-6 6:24 pm
To: ALL (1 of 19)
7531.1
All right. Due to the rumors that have been flying around, I took the opportunity to ask Cory about Alan Emrich's
status.
I was, admittedly, astounded by the response. Apparently all of the paranoiacs were right, after all - at least about
the reasons for his silence. Unfortunately, I did not log the chat, as HTML doesn't work very well for me; however, I
do have a fairly good memory for words, so I am confident that I'll be able to summarize the discussion accurately.
I asked Cory whether Alan had been banned and, to avoid ambiguity on the issue, reworded my question into "If Alan
decided today that he wanted to post to the MOO3 forum, would he have to ask someone's permission?"
His answer was yes.
I asked Cory who this person would be.
He stated that Alan would need to speak to "senior management" to obtain the permission; no specific name was
mentioned.
I asked how he had gotten permission for (I believe that was my neutral phrasing) his recent post, "Emrich Speaks", and
didn't get a reply. Now, before the conspiracy theorists decide that this means he was hiding something, I would like
to point out that Cory was very forthcoming in regards to all my other questions, I only asked once, and he was
simultaneously fielding questions, comments and detailed suggestions from three or four of us. However, he did later
make a couple of comments in response to others' discussion of the issue.
One comment was that his posting privileges [Alan's] were likely to be restored to him within the next few days.
The next, and chronologically close, comment was that they had all [his wording was "we all", I assume this means QS
staff or management] been very hurt by Alan's comments and that this was the reason he had not yet had free forum
access returned to him.
Make of this what you will.
He also discussed (not in as much detail) the dismissal of Sencho and HarelEilam. He said that Harel had been [in
hindsight, I assume] an unwise choice for moderator because of his opinionated nature. He then made another reference
to Harel as being either a "bad choice" or a "bad idea", don't remember which [I assume he was reiterating what he'd
said about making him into a moderator, not agreeing with his questioners and saying that the decision to send him off
had been a bad idea]. He also said something about the incident that prompted them to remove him, but I won't
reiterate it here for fear of causing the deletion of the entire post.
He said something about [the decision to dismiss] Sencho being "tougher", or "harder", because he was such a nice guy
[his words], but implied very vaguely that he too was not an ideal moderator. He further reiterated the statement that
Sencho had been dismissed because of a posting in another forum that was non-offensive [but potentially harmful to QS?]
and that they'd felt, regardless of the fact that it was a personal opinion, it would be associated with QS and that
was bad. He declined to give the location of the involved posts.
That is everything of great significance to the issue that was said in the chat. As I said, I was really rather
stunned to learn that it was true that Alan *had* been forbidden to post. I do agree that it casts a bad light on his
last post, given that he gave a different reason for his absence in it.
So it's official. Alan's forbidden his forum use for an undetermined time period. I just hope he doesn't have to
knuckle under to anyone to get it back.
Cory: if you feel I've misrepresented your statements here, feel free to reply to it and correct me but try to avoid
deleting my post. I think the latter action would continue to fuel the fires of paranoia.
-Nekira
P.S.: Cory also said, basically, that given their experience with this forum they won't be doing another one for their
next game, or at least, not the same way. He also said that they wouldn't be disclosing information to us (well, the
public) on their next game before the design phase was through, and said it with a large degree of emphasis at that.
Again, make of it what you will.
To: ALL (1 of 19)
7531.1
All right. Due to the rumors that have been flying around, I took the opportunity to ask Cory about Alan Emrich's
status.
I was, admittedly, astounded by the response. Apparently all of the paranoiacs were right, after all - at least about
the reasons for his silence. Unfortunately, I did not log the chat, as HTML doesn't work very well for me; however, I
do have a fairly good memory for words, so I am confident that I'll be able to summarize the discussion accurately.
I asked Cory whether Alan had been banned and, to avoid ambiguity on the issue, reworded my question into "If Alan
decided today that he wanted to post to the MOO3 forum, would he have to ask someone's permission?"
His answer was yes.
I asked Cory who this person would be.
He stated that Alan would need to speak to "senior management" to obtain the permission; no specific name was
mentioned.
I asked how he had gotten permission for (I believe that was my neutral phrasing) his recent post, "Emrich Speaks", and
didn't get a reply. Now, before the conspiracy theorists decide that this means he was hiding something, I would like
to point out that Cory was very forthcoming in regards to all my other questions, I only asked once, and he was
simultaneously fielding questions, comments and detailed suggestions from three or four of us. However, he did later
make a couple of comments in response to others' discussion of the issue.
One comment was that his posting privileges [Alan's] were likely to be restored to him within the next few days.
The next, and chronologically close, comment was that they had all [his wording was "we all", I assume this means QS
staff or management] been very hurt by Alan's comments and that this was the reason he had not yet had free forum
access returned to him.
Make of this what you will.
He also discussed (not in as much detail) the dismissal of Sencho and HarelEilam. He said that Harel had been [in
hindsight, I assume] an unwise choice for moderator because of his opinionated nature. He then made another reference
to Harel as being either a "bad choice" or a "bad idea", don't remember which [I assume he was reiterating what he'd
said about making him into a moderator, not agreeing with his questioners and saying that the decision to send him off
had been a bad idea]. He also said something about the incident that prompted them to remove him, but I won't
reiterate it here for fear of causing the deletion of the entire post.
He said something about [the decision to dismiss] Sencho being "tougher", or "harder", because he was such a nice guy
[his words], but implied very vaguely that he too was not an ideal moderator. He further reiterated the statement that
Sencho had been dismissed because of a posting in another forum that was non-offensive [but potentially harmful to QS?]
and that they'd felt, regardless of the fact that it was a personal opinion, it would be associated with QS and that
was bad. He declined to give the location of the involved posts.
That is everything of great significance to the issue that was said in the chat. As I said, I was really rather
stunned to learn that it was true that Alan *had* been forbidden to post. I do agree that it casts a bad light on his
last post, given that he gave a different reason for his absence in it.
So it's official. Alan's forbidden his forum use for an undetermined time period. I just hope he doesn't have to
knuckle under to anyone to get it back.
Cory: if you feel I've misrepresented your statements here, feel free to reply to it and correct me but try to avoid
deleting my post. I think the latter action would continue to fuel the fires of paranoia.
-Nekira
P.S.: Cory also said, basically, that given their experience with this forum they won't be doing another one for their
next game, or at least, not the same way. He also said that they wouldn't be disclosing information to us (well, the
public) on their next game before the design phase was through, and said it with a large degree of emphasis at that.
Again, make of it what you will.
From: THE_BRUTE Apr-6 7:38 pm
To: NEKIRA (5 of 19)
7531.5 in reply to 7531.1
Nekira I was also in the chat and I must say that I think you read to much into what he said and possibly that you
misinterpeted (sp?) some of it.
Some of the things you wrote weren't said by Cory but to him.
Your summary makes it sound worse than it really was.
To: NEKIRA (5 of 19)
7531.5 in reply to 7531.1
Nekira I was also in the chat and I must say that I think you read to much into what he said and possibly that you
misinterpeted (sp?) some of it.
Some of the things you wrote weren't said by Cory but to him.
Your summary makes it sound worse than it really was.
From: THE_BRUTE Apr-6 10:41 pm
To: NEKIRA (12 of 19)
7531.12 in reply to 7531.8
Um, okay. I believe this is possible, but can you actually tell me what you think I'm wrong on? This would be good
not only for me but for other readers. And are you sure that you're not noticing the explanations of what I had said
to him but missing their attributions (to me)?
I'll give it a try, altough I'm not sure if my writing skills are up to it (nothing wrong with the reading ones
though).
First of all your summary is better than anything that I could produce and secondly I'm not entirely comfortable
disecting what Cory said in the chatroom here.
Maybe it's nitpicking but here goes.
1. Alan is blocked from posting by senior management. [That's all he said regarding that, the answer to who he had to
ask was answered by another person in the chatroom]
2. He said that "we" were upset at the time "we" banned Alan and that he probably would be getting his privileges (sp?)
back sometime soon.
[What he didn't say was why they were upset, maybe it was because of what Alan did, maybe it was something entirely
different and they just didn't need that kind of stuff from Alan right then so they slapped him down with a ban so that
they could sort things out in private. Or something entirely else maybe. I just wanted to point out that he didn't say
anything about why they were upset and he didn't say anything about beeing hurt etc...]
3. Regarding the moderators. Cory didn't say anything bad about either of them.
He told of why Harel had been sacked. Question came (from me) about if they were such good choices to begin with
because of their strong opinions and the amount of time they had invested. Cory said that Harel might not have been the
best choice for moderator (no reason to why not, maybe because of his strong opinions, but Cory didnt say) but that
sencho was and that the decision to kick him was much harder etc.
No major difference from what you wrote, but imho yours gave a grimer look of things and put some words in Corys mouth
that he didn't actually say.
To: NEKIRA (12 of 19)
7531.12 in reply to 7531.8
Um, okay. I believe this is possible, but can you actually tell me what you think I'm wrong on? This would be good
not only for me but for other readers. And are you sure that you're not noticing the explanations of what I had said
to him but missing their attributions (to me)?
I'll give it a try, altough I'm not sure if my writing skills are up to it (nothing wrong with the reading ones
though).
First of all your summary is better than anything that I could produce and secondly I'm not entirely comfortable
disecting what Cory said in the chatroom here.
Maybe it's nitpicking but here goes.
1. Alan is blocked from posting by senior management. [That's all he said regarding that, the answer to who he had to
ask was answered by another person in the chatroom]
2. He said that "we" were upset at the time "we" banned Alan and that he probably would be getting his privileges (sp?)
back sometime soon.
[What he didn't say was why they were upset, maybe it was because of what Alan did, maybe it was something entirely
different and they just didn't need that kind of stuff from Alan right then so they slapped him down with a ban so that
they could sort things out in private. Or something entirely else maybe. I just wanted to point out that he didn't say
anything about why they were upset and he didn't say anything about beeing hurt etc...]
3. Regarding the moderators. Cory didn't say anything bad about either of them.
He told of why Harel had been sacked. Question came (from me) about if they were such good choices to begin with
because of their strong opinions and the amount of time they had invested. Cory said that Harel might not have been the
best choice for moderator (no reason to why not, maybe because of his strong opinions, but Cory didnt say) but that
sencho was and that the decision to kick him was much harder etc.
No major difference from what you wrote, but imho yours gave a grimer look of things and put some words in Corys mouth
that he didn't actually say.