Taking it too far and the ramifications

So they are GBA, even if they didn't do anything. How curious.

 

By that logic, the entire staff team that was present at the time of GunAndBomb's tenure is considered an associate and should be banned.

Like I said before, just because they were previously associates doesn't make them currently associated.
Most of the people you've banned is against what GunAndBomb did and he did it on his own accord.

 

The "Let's ban the whole lot" thing seems like it is the easy way out of the whole mess. Just ban everyone instead of actually seeing who did what.

 

I dont want to say that the decision taken by you and the higher administration to execute these bans is necessarily wrong, but I feel like banning someone for currently (or even in one case formerly) being friends or close with trolls and toxic members is not the most correct of choices. Members like Anna and Sinz had not done anything negative and in some cases even came back to see how some people were doing after 1/11, so i dont understand the necessity of a one year ban for them. They made mistakes back in January and were both demoted/ the resigned, so I dont get why they would have to pay for toxic behavior carried out by other members who just so happen to be their friends. What is your stance on this? And is there a possibility of you and the upper administration considering this?
With regards.
-Kyle

 

@Highwon

What about Thistle, Pandora, Isabella, Legitcake, Guardia, Lemon, Ichikunjii, Kyogre, Darktooth and honestly probably more that I'm forgetting about? Multiple of these people (NOT all) were more associated with them than Sir Clutch was for instance. What guidelines made you choose the group you did over the group you didn't? If association with them is looked down upon, do I have to fear a 1 year ban for still having friendships with some of them and not particularly agreeing with this decision?



If you ask any of the group of banned people, they will all tell you that they had no part in the decisions made by Wompzilla and GunAndBomb to do what they did to the E-mail. Honestly, Wompzilla is not even related to what happened on 1/11, so you can't really just put this on them due to it either. I just want what's fair here and this issue is making me feel like it might be overlooked by the community.

 

Highwon,

That post is from three years ago. Take a look at it, you got a lot of praise for it back then. But now it seems that a handful of people disagree with that mindset. All I'm asking for is a reconsideration for those that might not have been involved.

It's seems like a good chunk of the community doesn't feel like this is the best option. If you keep on reminding people that they don't have to stay we will lose some valuable members of the community.

 

Knowing Highwon, given a few days or weeks to let things settle down, actions be be reflected upon, and if there were any mistakes made, they can be corrected

 

Disclaimer: I know very little about this situation (1/11 and who did what), but I've read through every reply made as of yet to this thread, as well as some "historical documentation" of what went down.

But I have to say, from my experience with them, I can't see the justification for the bans on Sinz and Anna (possibly some others) for what others have done.
In the time I've been here, they've been nice and showed no malice that I could see as such, they just seemed to want to have fun with everyone else here. That's how they came across to me in SB. Friendly jokes and conversation. I can't recall having witnessed them troll, start drama, or similar in the time I've been here (since February).

As such, unless there's evidence that they encouraged this or supported it or whatever, I really don't see how a ban on them for ties to the group is justified, in lieu of how they've been lately. Sure, back then, they may have shown malintent (not saying they did or didn't but ^disclaimer), however banning them now, after a month or two of good behaviour?
I can't, with the admittedly limited knowledge I have, agree with that decision. And as such I'd like to know why some people who have been on good behaviour are now punished for actions not their own.

 

Spoiler: This is merely my opinion on people and events.

Based on what I read this was not only about the email spam, that was merely the tipping point for Highwon, this was also about their general attitude as a group every single time they logged on, very rarely did any of them have any good intentions when they got on, you will argue about Anna & Sinz perhaps, but if you recall the uproar Anna caused when Rogers got banned for what, a month I think for being toxic, these 2 (Anna&Sinz) are directly tied to the group of former staff that have absolutely no good intentions here and from what ive seen from other people's attitude that were their friends, when they get on it's like a puppet show, stirring shit up, controlling their little friends with the connections they still have with people, I dont mean they are directly in the background saying do this do that, but 1 of them says something like "Highwon is wrong, Highwon is bad" - (not a direct quote) and their friends start. Now when I say friends I dont just mean those that were banned, but many people that arent banned and still linger, but I think the logic behind this is that, they are hoping with the main problem gone the smaller problems will stop.

(these are just my personal opinions on these people and basic observations)
As for the list you gave of people, Pandora, Kyogre, DT, Legit have been nothing but respectful, from what ive seen, Kyogre left with no ill feelings from what ive personally seen and spoke to him about, DT got banned came back and rather than be toxic like the others, made a giveaway and left not once did he make a large post ranting about Highwon or join in those threads that were derailed by them or made by them, I haven't even seen Pandora since the events and if she had been on I doubt she would be rude from what I was told about her even in the middle of the entire event that night she said nothing and did not join in their spam threads and shit. As for Legit he is just a bae and ive also barely seen him.

As for Thistle, while you arent wrong, you arent right, I havent seen Thistle in awhile and while he joins in with their antics he also doesn't go on and on, what maybe a few times a week if that to make a few posts, joining in with them (not always) but I believe he is 1 that should be added to that list as he does cause more harm than good these days.
Leaving only Isabella, Guardia, Lemon and Ichi, 2 of which I never even see online anymore, from very basic observations Lemon tends to join in but in a manner that isn't really toxic imo, he keeps most of what ive seen rather straight forward (doesn't intentionally go to derail threads etc)
Ichi barely gets on and when he does he only makes a few harmless posts.

Now based on what ive just said about a few of these people you may argue Anna's ban again, based on most of her posts not being toxic but she is still tied in with them but lemon for example isn't, the way I see this with Anna is she has somehow had such an impact on people that when she does decide to make a post or add to their non-sense alot of those people she had an impact on flood to her and without even reading what she says or paying attention to what she does, immediately jump on that band-wagon.

(I want to make it clear, I say somehow because other than being a female, she had next to no hours on gmod and spent all her time in a locked channel with alot of those that are banned now. She was friendly but her impact on this place from an OUTSIDER'S perspective was merely because she was a female and making it very apparent that she was in-fact a GIRL, we know what neckbeards be like.)



NOW, in retort to this stupid mislead attitude alot of you have about evidence and alot of lead discussions about these types of events, reports on admin, having to be shown publicly and shared with the community, when and why did this start? serious question, like ive been around awhile and this was never a thing, lead discussions on reports and events like such were never discussed openly with the community and you should feel privileged that they share as much as they do now, because back in the day they didn't! This new idea that people have that things need to be shared with everyone is fucking stupid, why do you guys think you have any right to know every single tiny detail of what goes on behind the scenes, there is a reason things like this are kept private, it's so it cannot be twisted into whatever suits your opinion, to create more arguments and problems. Highwon's verdict is final verdict that simple. But with that said, how often do you see Highwon say HE decided, ohh very rarely verging on never, he talks and makes a group decision with upper administration on what the best course of action is before making that verdict, this is not new, this is the way it has always been done from my point of view.

 

As I feel this refers to my post amongst others, I'll reply with my reason for inquiry:
I personally haven't seen anything bad from Anna nor Sinz in the time I've been around, and as such, when I saw it pointed out that both had been banned, I found myself confused.

I trust the judgment of Highwon and administration as a whole, but from my perspective, it seemed questionable to ban those two in particular.
And, since it didn't make sense to me, I wanted to add my perspective on how they've behaved lately (in my eyes), and consequently why I fail to see the reason to lump them in with the rest. Essentially an "outsider's perspective" on the matter, having not experienced the original event and thusly only being able to judge their recent behaviour.

I also want to clarify that I never requested the evidence be made public. I only ask the reason (e.g. "they encouraged it", "they've been causing toxicity", etc.) for those bans. Because I've not seen any tangible ones in the time I've been here, apart from their involvement back in January.

As for the point of using non-disclosure to avoid arguments and whatnot, in my opinion the same would apply to some level of disclosure. If people have doubts about administration or their choices, and can't voice it or have it settled, that may lead to a disconnect between staff and regulars over time. Consequently it would cause undue friction between what should be a collective.

That said, I agree that everyone doesn't need to know everything. But with the caveat that if a decision is called into question, it ought to be explained. I think that ignoring questions or simply affirming it as the way it's going to be, those actions would only give rise to distrust.
In my opinion, questioning a decision should be seen as "quality control" to make doubly sure that matters are handled in a fair manner, not as meddling nor entitlement.

 

this was not directed at you, but merely a multitude of people and this particular part that you quoted ranged from this thread to 100 others.

 

I don't agree nor disagree with the bans entirely. I'm really neutral about it all, as i've had friends who were part of the group that left back on 1/11. Hell, my old admin @Pandora? was one of the ones who left, and it kind of left me conflicted. A lot of us feel the same way, we can't make a stand on these issues because we are too personally invested. That is where the confliction of interest comes in. I love my friends, and I miss a lot of them but I also have to understand that the future is knocking and I need to get the door. At the end of the day, if you are one of the ones who disagrees with the bans for whatever reason, I want you guys to ask yourself "is this all worth it?". There is sympathy for the people who are banned, but why is there blind hatred towards the establishment who made them leave? At the end of the day, I can't change the world.

 

It's no surprise the amount of outrage, confusion, support, or lack thereof people have for this decision as people will normally have during these kinds of times in a community like this. Now, before I begin I'll state a few facts:

1. I was not directly involved in 1/11 therefore the explicit content regarding each of the banned users for their actions is not something I am entirely aware of.
2. There is a hand full of reasons I do have why several of these users were banned due to their recent actions and in tandem with their past history that has been supplemented by relevant staff members it made this decision that much more easy.
3. Everyone who was banned was not innocent and or involved in such a way as to conflict the interests of the community. Sure, there's people you could say they are more guilty than others (maybe, based on your interpretation), nonetheless to act as if no one did anything worth noting out of the group who was banned to me seems like people are taking an uninformed or biased stance on the matter.

So let's begin.

The events that led to the straw breaking the camel's back is nothing surprising to me. As I am sure many people can relate, if your livelihood is put at risk (and in this case, SGM's + his actual livelihood) with the absurd actions taken by a user who has been associated with 1/11 (I agree, it's a rather unfortunate name to give to this group but I digress) but more so the portion of that group that looks for the downfall of SGM I would and have given support to make this decision several more times in similar scenarios (as a former owner in a different community, I actually had to do something like this. Got the same type of reactions, mixed, and in the end it was for the better to create a more positive environment for the entire community).

So when you say people who were banned have had no part of these events, or just haven't done anything recently to justify their ban, it's not so much of what several of these people have done recently it's more so what they already have done. It's not like you look at an arsonist or a murderer as an innocent person just because they haven't done anything for a few months. Their intentions are still real, their malicious nature still exists, and they are just lurking in the dark waiting for their next chance. These users were given extreme leniency in that they weren't banned off the bat (if you remember, some of these users were almost instantly banned off the bat however they were given leniency) and given a chance to be in this community as long as they don't try to pull any more stunts they did on that night. So here we are, with a stunt. So why should his actions speak for the actions of everyone else?

They shouldn't, and they don't. It's more about GBA firstly (and this type of association is not going to be extended so widely as to include users who were demoted, or resigned on 1/11 but the more malicious folk), some of them will not let go of their past to this day as we can clearly see, and lastly these users have done malicious actions on 1/11. These users have done malicious stuff in the past regarding to those events it's not something that can be ignored and it must be taken into account in this decision. There's also people that were already listed in a post above me that did some of the same things, but they were able to turn a new leaf and move on with their lives and overlook this silly drama. In any case, each user who has been banned is not innocent. There's information that all of us, at least, the 99% of us will never be told (and frankly we shouldn't need to be told), however if this was done out of spite, or on a whim, what a different situation we would be in. I've seen what these users have done on that day just publicly, and what some of them have done up until now and I think it's necessary such an action was to be taken as to make a stand and finally move on from that day.

My last statement here will be how this decision was made. It was made because of the event of the straw that broke the camel's back. It was made with all types of evidence regarding the 1/11 events, it was made with upper administration's thoughts, and it was also made with some thoughts by other users/non-staff members of the community. That's correct, what I said was it's not a single person's decision to do this. Now why should we have a say, and especially those who are even less involved have a say in this matter? Well it's simple. (# of perspectives + overwhelming evidence) * times where leniency was given = conviction for a tough decision. This decision was truly the last resort. It has been about 3 months since 1/11 occurred and we were doing fine as a community regarding continuing from those events. Users who were not involved directly in the spur of the moment action of 1/11 have been able to see what some of these user's intentions were since then. Several have been reprimanded before the COI ban and so their perspective is valuable as they now have a place to stand by on this decision. It's well known this community has extreme leniency with rules, punishment, and things of the such and for people to take advantage of it... it's not fair. So that's why a decision needed to be made, has been made, was not blindly made, and was supported by many to be made.

Your thoughts, stances, what have you, may never change on this matter whether it's 1/11 or with this decision today, however you need to keep in mind it was a long time coming and it's something we wish we didn't have to do.

 

That argument is invalid. A pedophile came back as a staff member in this community like nothing happened. And you're comparing an arsonist and a murderer to people having an argument in an online community.

 

So many great mods have left because of this: C.A. Anna, Sir Clutch, GunandBomb, Rogers. Are these bans really helping out our community? What did the staff really leak? I'm really curious, any 1/11 member is more than welcome to add me on steam! I'd rather have fun mods then boring, law abiding ones. Look at the other servers and see why the mods and owners are loved so much

 

You're a very special.

 

Not sure who you're referring to with the first part. So I wont say anything about that.

I'm using that comparison, in fact, I could use a similar analogy that's supposedly less extreme like a robber (shrug), or really anyone who has broken the law (or in our case, the rules and abused the livelihood of the community) and gotten away with it, to show that why should we should not overlook the fact that what these people did on that night and the fact their intentions still linger. It should not make them innocent. Yea, it's a bit far-fetched to compare real-life to a silly mishap on the internet however what else should be used as a basis other than one's real life knowledge and experiences which have built this community?

Yes, and they leaked information you're not supposed to know and will not know.

 

How do you know it's a fact that their intentions still linger? How do you know they want to take this community down? That might be true for a couple people like GunAndBomb and Wompzilla, but what about the rest of them who didn't share the same feeling about the community, who didn't want to take it down?

They had an argument about decisions made by Highwon, how is that a malicious intent?

Right now it feels like people are trying to use the email spam as an excuse to ban people they don't like just because they were "associated" in the past. Some of them might have deserved the ban, but not all of them.

 

Outside of GunandBomb and Womp, the people who were not as malicious as them I suppose in your case, and then there's two individuals who were even much less deserving in your case, from what I've experienced from the people in the middle their intentions were very real it was just the fact they were playing along the borders instead of charging into no-man's land with nothing but stupid intentions. As for the other two, I was informed their intentions are still very much real. I'm sorry to tell you that my knowledge on the matter is more so about the users in the middle and the top and not about Sinz and Anna. Their actions, what they've done lately, what they've done on that day, is not stuff I know. That's why I pointed out in my large response:

By relevant staff members I mean not just highwon or else it would be just his name there. Current staff who were tenured during 1/11. It was a joint decision.

Whatever arguments they had should not be the malicious intent, it's the actions that spurred from the arguments, I would argue, is the malicious intent.

Now I'll be extremely frank with you. Would I have liked to see Sinz and Anna banned? Not really. I wouldn't have liked to see this happen at all. However, with those two in particular I was extremely biased in my defense of not banning them in that they're extremely nice people and my experience here would have been awful without them. It's going to be an utter shame that we can never go back to how things were as they were great and enjoyable times. However why should that be my reason to keep them around? And so why the sudden change? I'll refer to my quote I made earlier. I'll also state that if this wave of bans extended out any further I would most certainly take issue with it. Would my stance on them change if I actually knew what they did? That's something I may never know, and something I shouldn't need to know. My knowing of what they did would not have changed this decision. You're seeing my extremely personal perspective on the matter here, and it's unique to me and me alone so please do not try to relate this to others as it would not be fair.