"CATenWolde has been Banned from TMP?" Topic

This type of event is exactly why any reasonably sized message board on the net generally has moderator teams rather than a single person trying to handle it all.

That's been proposed before, but feel free to propose it again on the Poll Suggestions board.

It's probably a technological issue though. Modern message board software has the ability to easily give individuals moderator access to certain sections of the forums. I doubt this feature has been designed into TMP as TMP has been a one man show.

Currently, the software only supports global moderators, but I don't think adding limited moderators would be difficult.

…rather than one person swamped with everything.

Actually, I've been on top of complaints lately.

I think there would be value in you *initiating* this process,(that nathaniel alluded to and you just echoed) Bill,

Diversifying moderation on an international board will take the personalities out of the moderation, put tripwires into any hasty, rash, heated, partially-informed or ego-driven actions moderators and porters may make,
Everyone has bad days, makes bad choices, posters and editors both. everyones fallible to it.

I went the PM route, didnt get a reply and thus posted my concerns about Ivandba and the bnp issue which is a RED-button issue for UK people, its incredibly difficult to over state this point.

Bars have bouncers, Pitts needed a bouncer. but the issues of late might have gained benefit from considered co-operative editorial nuance

Bill, are you sure the bad vibes that you want to keep out of tmp aren't coming from the decisions you've made? Banning Connard and Chris was a very very bad decision.

So it's your site. Your justification is that if someone is spoiling the party then you'd show them the door. How many peple do you think share Chris' revulsion at the paedophile thing on the humour board? Are they all peeing in the brook too, and should they all go as well?

A sad day for this place and a very poor decision. Thanks for publicising this Sam!

Personally a different moderator or more moderators would just make things worse.

It wouldn't be less personal, it would be more personal and harder to deal with as you will get different moderators with different subjective standards.

Whatever I think about Bill there are some people on here that would truly scare me to have as a moderator.

What's the expression… 'Better the devil you know'

Why fix what ain't broken. We've been here before, no doubt we will get here again in the future, its part of what makes TMP 'TMP'.

The Editor wrote: Actually, I've been on top of complaints lately.

I meant swamped by the entirety of running the whole site. It's a full time job.

TMP is your venture. The decision about whether or not to find trusted volunteers to take some of the duties lies with you.

BravoX wrote: It wouldn't be less personal, it would be more personal and harder to deal with as you will get different moderators with different subjective standards.

And an appeals process. And a consensus of moderation gets developed. And if you end up with someone thinking things have gotten personal, it can be taken up with an uninvolved moderator. In this case Chris was taking umbridge with The Editor's moderation. There was no other moderator to pass it off to that could have a non-heated discussion with Chris to assess what the best solution is.

Chris has contributed positively to TMP in the past and it's a shame we have lost him as a member. I think a third party probably could have convinced him to take a step back from his reactions and chill a bit. Perhaps after some time, he'll be able to come back here and post again. Though the entire thing might have soured his opinion of TMP and The Editor to the point of not being willing. And perhaps The Editor will always see him as a negative rabble rouser constantly accusing him of bad moderation.

cheers for sharing that WK.

a more composed and gentle statement from an exile I've not read.

we lose chris' valuable archaeological insight.
I'd love to host bill and chris with a beer in the whitehouse backgarden, put it down to stuff happens and resume from a few days ago.
Chris knows there was probably a tad more acid in the conversation than is normally his part but that happens. I wonder how Bill might handle this differently.
Surely theres a better outcome?

Here it is agian this is from Christopher in a very open and honest letter.
William Keyser

To the TMP Community:

While Mr. Armintrout unfortunately has the power to ban me from TMP, he should not assume the right to demonize me in a public forum with a one-sided interpretation of events, and without any chance of reply on my part. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to present my side of the story.

Firstly, Mr. Armintrout has implied that there was some sort of communication process that took place when he banned me, by saying that he communicated with me by PM. Evidently, he feels that summarily informing me that I have been banned is communication. His entire explanation was as follows: "I was reviewing some of your recent posts, and have decided that you're not a good fit for the TMP community. Therefore, I am Locking your account, and asking you to move along to another website. " My immediate and admittedly somewhat pithy reply was: "Try being honest – I ed you off, not the TMP Community." I never received any warnings, either in the forums or by PM. My own reply has unsurprisingly not been answered. Mr. Armintrout has suggested that it is the TMP community's fault for making this matter public, and implied that he was open to communication, but that is obviously not the case. Unlike other bannings, which were publicly announced after a long and open process and justified by the effect on the TMP Community, this banning was a sudden and evidently purely personal issue that he wished to keep private. No TMP guidelines were violated, and no warnings were received.

Secondly, Mr. Armintrout has stated that his reason for my banning was: "If he feels (as he has recently posted) that I'm inconsistent, capricious, corrupt, and unfair, then he really will be happier elsewhere." Other than "corrupt" (which he felt necessary to go back an add to the text after posting), I have indeed suggested that his moderation policies are inconsistent, and that he follows posting practices that would result in DH'ing or banning to other parties. I am hardly the first or last person to suggest these things, but have obviously been singled out for retribution. However, I categorically deny the charge that I suggested he was "corrupt", or as he says elsewhere that I accused him of "being dishonest." These are inflammatory and unfounded interpretations of my posting record that he is producing in order to justify his behavior. Again, I violated no TMP rules in my criticisms, and received no warnings of any sort.

Thirdly, Mr. Armintrout obviously objects to my suggesting that the unique business model that TMP operates under has an effect on the way that moderation is carried out, and that it has to be taken into account when considering both the current situation and any future changes. He has chosen to interpret this as an attack on him and his livelihood, saying "I own the bar, it's my livelihood. If someone can't behave, sometimes I have to show them the door." Other than the fact that his response proves my original point in rather extreme fashion, an examination of what I actually said will show that, while I did start out with an admittedly confrontational tone (the "Wg Cdr Luddite speaks out" thread), I quickly moved to a more balanced discussion after a short reply from Mr. Armintrout (same thread), simply emphasizing the unique situation at TMP and asking a series of straightforward and seemingly uncontroversial questions that went unanswered. When several other people took up the theme (in this case in the "FreeIvanDBA" thread), although unfortunately somewhat acerbic, I specifically defended his right to protect his livelihood and acknowledged that TMP has been an effective platform for the hobby, however I also made the mistake of noting that these criticisms were themselves ironically good for a business model based on page hits driving advertising. This has led Mr. Armintrout to suggest that I inferred an "evil profit motive" (his quotes, not my words) in his moderation policies, which I challenge anyone to derive from the exactly 3 posts I made on the subject. Once again, I violated no TMP rules in my observations, and received no warnings of any sort that the subject of his business was evidently out of bounds.

My feeling is that the TMP Community in its meaningful sense is defined by the wargamers and hobbyists who have created years of contributions and a feeling of camaraderie amongst themselves. I am proud of the many years I have been part of that community, and I am confident that the vast majority of my literally thousands of posts were a beneficial part of creating it. I highly value the great many friendships I have made in the process, and my role in supporting and growing the miniatures wargaming hobby. I do not feel that this sudden and unjustified banning is an expression in any way of my role in the TMP Community. It was a personal decision made by Mr. Armintrout without any sort of communication with me or the TMP Community, exercising his power to decide who plays a role in this most visible expression of our hobby on the internet.

Lastly, I appreciate the show of good will that I have received both on TMP and by email, and although I regret that others have been banned as well in the aftermath of Mr. Armintrout's actions against me, I want to thank those who took a stand in this matter.

Cheers,

Christopher

Thanks, WK. It's good to read CATenWolde's response.

I haven't checked in for a few days. I am completely flabbergasted by how much this seems to have gotten out of hand.

Thanks for posting Chris' reply and explanation Bill. I have always found Chris's contribution to be well-founded and considered as well as personally interesting. He has acted with sanity during some flame wars and I'll be sad to see him go, as I will the others who were banned.

This decision has obviously caused a great deal of disquiet amongst the board's members which hardly seems a rational thing to do for any business. CTW has been a reasoned and effective member here and his loss will be TMP's loss also. It's a very sad and disturbing state of affairs that such a long time and well thought of member can be displaced with in such an apparently arbitary manner and I for one hope that it can be reversed for the sake of the board and for all our members who may be now unsure about the suitability of any future post they may make.

How many people do you think share Chris' revulsion at the paedophile thing on the humour board?

Very few. I think most TMP'ers "get it" that News of the Weird is a valid subject for the Humor board – after all, it's written right in the board's definition.

With regard to CATenWolde's post:

…he should not assume the right to demonize me in a public forum with a one-sided interpretation of events…

Sam asked me publicly why your account was Locked, and I explained. What else would you have me do?

…and without any chance of reply on my part…

I'd have posted your response for you, if I'd seen it. However, it's a holiday weekend over here in the U.S.

Evidently, he feels that summarily informing me that I have been banned is communication.

Yes, it is. I gave you my reasoning, and left the door open for further communication in private.

Mr. Armintrout has suggested that it is the TMP community's fault for making this matter public…

I don't believe I blamed the community; it was Sam who posted it publicly.

Unlike other bannings, which were publicly announced after a long and open process and justified by the effect on the TMP Community, this banning was a sudden and evidently purely personal issue that he wished to keep private.

Wait a minute – a moment ago I was accused of demonizing you in public, and now I'm accused of trying to keep my crime private???

In the early days of TMP, every time someone was Locked, an announcement was made. The feedback was that it was better to do this in private, except in the most egregious cases. That's been the policy for several years now.

No TMP guidelines were violated, and no warnings were received.

Would it have made a difference? My sense is that you are going to ride your hobby horse, regardless of what I say to you.

…he follows posting practices that would result in DH'ing or banning to other parties…

I believe this is in reference to the Weird News item I posted to the Humor board? If so, again I remind you that the Humor board's definition specifically includes News of the Weird – not everything that goes on that board is in the nature of "funny ha ha."

…Mr. Armintrout obviously objects to my suggesting that the unique business model that TMP operates under has an effect on the way that moderation is carried out…

As I've mentioned before, I have no idea why you think TMP's model is so "unique." (Apparently you have responded to my questions at some point, but I have not returned to the topic(s) in question and have not seen your response.)

However, you seem to me to be clearly accusing me of being influenced by factors that interfere with fair moderation of the forums.

…a business model based on page hits driving advertising…

Your argument seems to be that I have a motive to drive up page hits, and therefore you think that I am less likely to moderate controversial forum topics. The problem with your argument is that the advertisers do not pay by page hits; the additional hits provide no additional income, and in fact may drive up costs (due to bandwidth issues).

whistling in the dark, Bill?

Bill,

Just because someone starts a public discussion, does not mean you couldn't have responded and discussed the issues privately through e-mail or PM with either Sam or Chris.

And, your admission that Chris violated no TMP rules only highlights the absurdity of his banishment. Silly reason you gave: "My sense is that you are going to ride your hobby horse, regardless of what I say to you."

Certainly the mature and responsible manner to resolve the issues he had with your administration would have been to discuss "problems" he saw either privately. To simply ban someone because they criticize is going way over the top in my opinion.

John

You don't have to break TMP rules to get banned.

I got banned for criticising TMP on an entirely different forum…

[I don't believe I blamed the community; it was Sam who posted it publicly.]

Sigh. My resolution not to post for a while has lasted all of two days.

Bill, in the past, quite recently, you've made News items out of banning people from TMP, sometimes even displaying their pictures on the front page for days. You've encouraged discussion of it, by posting stories about it.

Why you wanted or expected Chris' banning to remain a secret, I have no idea. But since you didn't offer him any reason at the time, and since he's my friend and asked me, I wanted to know why.

If it hadn't been me, somebody else would have asked why. (For the same reason you get dozens of "Free So-and-So!" topics every month of people wanting reasons for why their friend got Dawghoused.)

I'm not saying I endorse Chris' criticisms of you or of TMP. I have my own concerns, but I've bitten my tongue. You've now given your reasons, and that's that.

But I'd appreciate it if you'd not use me as an excuse/reason/scapegoat for this conflict between you and the banned members.

PS – surely you understand that if members are banned for what you regard as negative vibes or excessive criticism, that will have the effect that nobody will dare to converse with you in any contrary manner. Consequently, even though it may not have been your intent, it certainly makes it look like your intent, to use banning or the threat of banning to prevent criticism.

@bstu

tell me you're joking.

Nope, I'm not joking.

Bill lurks on other fora, and his reach is long….

Seems to me that if you truly are narked off with Bill's high handed attitude, that you should cancel your supporting memberships, cancel your trader support and you should quit posting here and let him reap what he sows.

How many people do you think share Chris' revulsion at the paedophile thing on the humour board?

Very few. I think most TMP'ers "get it" that News of the Weird is a valid subject for the Humor board – after all, it's written right in the board's definition.

Bill, just for the record, I didn't "get it" with regards to the "weird" post in question. I thought it was distasteful and inappropriate.

Ditto. I fail to see what's funny about child molestation.

Perhaps Bill you'd care to enlighten us?

If the section is for 'odd news' then it needs a different name.

Very few TMPers? Are you sure Bill? I think you may be in a minority on this one.

I agree. That story had no business on this website, and certainly not on a board labelled Humor. It doesn't matter that the description includes "weird" news. The story was disgusting.

Bill, if you really believe this is a minority view, perhaps a poll is in order?

How many people do you think share Chris' revulsion at the paedophile thing on the humour board?

..and I'm another one who found it repulsive and inappropriate.

The whole meltdown over the last few days over this and the BNP/Vendel postings is really sad and is losing too many regulars for what seems to be capricious decision making and damaging the reputation of TMP.

Like others I suspect my time on WD3 and other fora will increase

This is the first time since 2002 when I signed up that I am activly looking at other forums. I also find the paedophile posting quite wrong. Still trying to understand that in connection with humor. oh well.

William Keyser

Okay well i missed the Pedo thing originally but Mr Armintrout's recent attempts to justify that and other matters has brought things to a head for me personally.

I'll be staying away from TMP for the next couple of months in protest and, in all likelyhood by then will have moved on permanently to new pastures.

Mr Armintrout, being the owner of this site does NOT automatically mean you are always right and a bit of reflection on various decisions and posts really is warranted in my humble opinion.

See you all around sometime. Maybe.

"How many people do you think share Chris' revulsion at the paedophile thing on the humour board?"

Erm -- aren't these threads readable by under-18s? I thought that was part of the justification for the bleeping filter?

It is true that it's "out there" on the inter-spod-net-webs anyway, but it's possible that people feel it shouldn't also be "in here" where the kids can see.

I also find the paedophile posting quite wrong. Still trying to understand that in connection with humor.

As I've repeatedly said, the Humor board is currently defined as the place where "news of the weird" also goes. Weird news is always strange, but not always "funny ha ha." The item I posted came from a "weird news"-type website, so obviously others besides myself thought it was weird. (Yes, a man posing as a Mayan priestess is weird.)

I'll be staying away from TMP for the next couple of months in protest and, in all likelyhood by then will have moved on permanently to new pastures.

You are a free agent, do as you please.

…being the owner of this site does NOT automatically mean you are always right and a bit of reflection on various decisions and posts really is warranted in my humble opinion.

You have judged me and I have come up short in your estimation. However, from my perspective, I am comfortable with my recent decisions (though I do not claim infallibility).

Man poses as Mayan priestess to shop in Wal-Mart = wierd (maybe)
Man poses as Mayan priestess to abuse kids = wierd?
Sorry Bill but you are wrong on this, context matters. And, in my world at least, child abuse does not equate to any form of humour ever. Having read through the posts it seems that more or less everyone else thinks the same.

Your argument seems to be that I have a motive to drive up page hits, and therefore you think that I am less likely to moderate controversial forum topics. The problem with your argument is that the advertisers do not pay by page hits; the additional hits provide no additional income, and in fact may drive up costs (due to bandwidth issues).

This is true, however in you sales blurb for advertisers you do stress the number of hits, how ads are shown when pages ate hit, etc.. Again context is important so although an increase in page hits won't directly increase your revenue, it does help to sell advertising in the future.

This is such hypocrisy; you want to talk about negative vibes Bill, look in the mirror!

A few years ago there was a huge brew up over radical elements of the LDS and child brides which "you and LLD" brought from the CA Bds to the Main Bds!

Now there is another brew up because you seem to think that pedophilia is weirdly humorous instead of a horrific crime against a child.

I think practicing radical elements of the LDS are horrific and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! I think Catholic priests that are guilty of pedophilia deserve to be jailed with murderers! I think pedophiles are diseased pieces of crap that need to be executed for murdering the innocence of a child and propagating their filth.

I also think that where there is smoke there is fire---your fascination with this topic is not natural, it's very worrying and it doesn't belong on this site.

You have perhaps the best miniatures related news forum on the internet; your behavior in this is not beyond reproach.

I say again, if you want to see the source of the past and recent negative vibes Bill then look in a mirror.

Donald~
…frankly sick to my stomach

Add me to the list of people who didn't get it. I don't find stories about the sexual abuse of children to be humorous no matter how they're categorized. In my opinion it was an inaprropriate and ill-considered post for anyone to contribute, let alone the editor of the forum itself.

Bill – just ask yourself this.

Would you still find it merely 'wierd' had it been your kids?

The peanut gallery seems pretty united on this – why not just admit an error of judgement and move on?

Don't often log in but, count me as another one disgusted that paedophilia could be considered to be "humourous".

Shame on you sir.

I fear that you are urinating into the wind with this folks. The owner of the site has made it quite clear that he feels that he has no need to back down.

Might is right. Billz House, Billz Roolz. If you don't like it, tough.

Maybe we are, but I'd like Bill to state why he thinks anything to do with paedophilia is suitable for this forum.

I mean, if the Humour section also includes 'wierd' stuff, fair enough.

But if the swearing filter is because this forum is allegedly for a family audience, then how can you justify filth like that?

Sick, just very, very, sick :-(

Can this be seen as a precedent allowing Weird News style items dealing with paedophilia, neonazis and whatnot to be posted in the Humour section, as long as the original poster considers it funny?

What say we put "Is Paedophilia a valid subject for the Humour board" to a poll?…..

How about a poll for those who think this "Paedophilia" subject is a freaking dead horse and that some should just let it go and stop beating it? If you really have such a problem with it then use your right to just leave and no longer participate on this site like others have done for years. Robert

>>> What say we put "Is Paedophilia a valid subject for the Humour board" to a poll?…..

Can't say he didn't try.

Allen

Try nuked:

"Not found!" Topic

489,484 hits since 8 Aug 2001
©1994-2010 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

There is no Topic with this ID number.