Parting Thoughts

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Cebra said:

Since it seems you and Spider Vice have absolutely no intention of addressing any of the points I raised in good faith, this will be the last thing I say on this topic: what I've just quoted is so absurd I can't believe you actually posted it. One refrain I have heard multiple times speaking directly with mods on this topic is that, although he will not be banned for his conduct, it is more than fair that he is tried in the court of public opinion. Our community operates on an honor system and it has been breached. So no, there is no name calling; I am legitimately confounded by why you just said that, since we both know it isn't true - and nobody is going to stand for you maligning the community on top of this. It is not against the rules to mention another user's name and nobody has tagged him. You know that. This is so distant from the realm of harassment it is incredible to me that you'd even say it. We will move on as a community, and if the only justice meted out is that he becomes a pariah then so be it. Come on now

 

Your community, when posting on this forum, operates by forum rules. No ifs or buts.

 

And yes, there has been name dropping (he has been tagged) and further comments on the matter outside this subforum. I didn't make it up, we have seen the posts, just because you haven't seen them doesn't change that.

 

He broke the rules, he was outed for it, and he was dealt with by staff after we were informed. It is on him to apologise or take it further. It is not on your community to drag him through kangaroo court, not on this forum, because we have rules, rules you are keen to criticise but not keen to follow, it would seem.

 

And for the record, I am not maligning the entire community. The concept community has long been a friendly and creative part of GTAF. I am maligning the individuals who have done harm to that, of which there are more than one. You can continue with this all for one and one for all stuff if you'd like where everyone speaks on your behalf, which hasn't went well so far, or you can acknowledge there's been wrong doings in this situation from members from the concept community and deal with that responsibly. 

 

Again, we were issued an ultimatum, whether it was put kindly or not. That is inherently hostile and toxic.

[Spider-Vice]

32 minutes ago, Cebra said:

and nobody has tagged him. You know that.

So we're gaslighting & finger-pointing now? This is becoming nigh-on unacceptable.

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/719247-the-concept-creators-lounge/?do=findComment&comment=1072104548

 

I'm also going to assume you're deliberately misinterpreting the "name calling" bit.

 

I think we have to start dishing out the old phrase that we used to use with many people years ago, this topic is the very essence of it: "You are a guest on a free service, you have no rights and may make no demands". You DO NOT have free will to do whatever you want, or "try" anyone the way you want because you are not staff, we are. You having a general chat topic for your community does not mean you have full control over it and can do whatever the hell you want, you're still within GTAForums, and will act within our site rules and code of conduct.

[Cebra]

41 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

So we're gaslighting & finger-pointing now? This is becoming nigh-on unacceptable and reeks of entitlement.

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/719247-the-concept-creators-lounge/?do=findComment&comment=1072104548

 

I'm also going to assume you're deliberately misinterpreting the "name calling" bit.

 

I think we have to start dishing out the old phrase that we used to use with many people years ago, this topic is the very essence of it: "You are a guest on a free service, you have no rights and may make no demands". You DO NOT have free will to do whatever you want, or "try" anyone the way you want because you are not staff, we are. You having a general chat topic for your community does not mean you have full control over it and can do whatever the hell you want, you're still within GTAForums, and will act within our site rules and code of conduct.

I'm glad we're talking about the same topic here. Jason mentioned both name calling and name dropping distinctly so I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything at all. The name calling is utterly false - name dropping, or tagging, is different. I was mistaken about him being tagged directly but it's still completely absurd to suggest that this remotely approaches the realm of harassment, especially when your language implies that several people are responsible for this, rather than one user who tagged him one time; and speaking on UT's behalf, people have the right to ask him once to account for his behavior. Nothing in the rules about that. If he doesn't want to then sure, continuing to tag him asking that would be. Luckily nobody's done that! You'll also notice that nobody in this thread has actually mentioned the user by name either: not exactly an affirmation of you repeatedly trying to characterize us as dramatic, hysterical, reckless, but hey.

 

Strongly agreed on the rules btw. Good thing nobody here has trounced on them except for the person this topic is about

 

Also - you not addressing a single aspect of my post on page one speaks volumes. It's very disheartening to see you complain that there's no intent for good faith discussion and then refuse to engage when there is

 

45 minutes ago, Jason said:

It is not on your community to drag him through kangaroo court, not on this forum, because we have rules, rules you are keen to criticise but not keen to follow, it would seem.

And I'll reiterate: nowhere in the rules does it say we can't talk passively about another user. He was tagged directly once and all subsequent conversation has been about moving beyond his fraud. A very, very far cry from harassment, or any other rule.

Edited March 14 by Cebra

[Jason]

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

I imagine you can tell how it comes across that you came out of the gates swinging

 

We were issued an ultimatum. Coconut came out swinging. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the first wrong explains the second. Can't criticise one if you can't criticise the other.

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

 I think it needs to be stressed that every effort was taken so that this whole thing could stay private and be resolved privately to avoid unnecessary drama

 

We weren't the ones to make it public, and we weren't the ones to dramatise it. Whatever your (as in the concept communities) original intentions were, they were obliterated with the court house topic by Coco and this thread.

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

The Courthouse post has stagnated for over a week: multiple people have now told you that, as a token of acknowledgement to any of us affected by this, even the briefest of replies would've sufficed - even "we're handling it" or a simple "we stand by our decision".

 

The courthouse post was an ultimatum, and immediate hostile start from Coco to the discussion before it escalated in this thread. Further, the situation with the user was dealt with and as stated previously, you are not privy to conversations we have with other members, or what punishments they have received. For the sake of argument, I acknowledge that we could perhaps have responsed or contacted Coco and mentioned simply that the matter is closed, but one look at this thread and people criticising us for not banning him tells me that that wouldn't have been the end of the issue. That's an if, but there's more than enough evidence at this point to say that there was an expectation of a certain punishment - a ban.

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

You've opted to look us all right in the face and rather than consider even for a second that yes, there have been some communication issues, and yes, there is valid constructive critique here, you've chosen to go "actually, every single one of your concerns is not valid.

 

For the sake of argument, I'll agree communication could've been better - again, you are not privy to conversations we have with others though - but I have still yet to see anyone take responsability for giving us an ultimatum, anyone criticisng posts calling us shills or other heavy handed posts aimed at staff of Spider. It is alarming, and not a good look, that no one here is willing to take responsibility or otherwise acknowledge that there's been poor comments from members of your community. You and others from the concept community - not the commuity as a whole, fyi - seem content with people saying what they want, even if it's a hostile or otherwise toxic comment, as long as it alligns with your beliefs. Meanwhile, if a member of staff is critical of the behaviour of members of your community then it's "absurd".

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

It would be nice if you could just acknowledge: is it fair for several members of the staff to have left him on read for over a year despite,

 

Staff, particularly admins, get a ton of messages, and as has been said previously, we are all volunteers with our own personal lives. It is unreasonable to expect us to be able to reply, especially with a worthy response (ie not one word or line), to every message we receive, and sometimes things just slip through the cracks. It is troubling that this particular point has become such a sticking point in the matter frankly, it's a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation.

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

This one person was associated with six sockpuppets: multiply that by every Series regular who replied in this thread, you're at 48 alt accounts - this is a completely reasonable hypothetical because using alts to prop up our threads has now been explicitly sanctioned by staff as long as we don't use said accounts to antagonize people (directly, at least: passively calling other concepts "absolute garbage" seems to be fine). I think we all understand that punishment should be proportionate to the amount of harm caused to the forum, yes, but is this really a tenable position? Sure, he was warned. But he continued to try and gaslight us into believing they were different accounts just yesterday.

 

None of what you said is factually correct. We do not, under any circumstances, allow multiple active accounts. We have a long history of finding them and dealing with them, and our standard method of dealing with them is to message the account owner and telling him/her to pick one account and stick to it, and we'll ban the others. Your hypothetical is not completely reasonable, it's factually incorrect information.

 

5 hours ago, Cebra said:

I don't understand why there's such reluctance to hear our concerns at all. All we want is some acknowledgement from staff that we exist and that the concerns we have are legitimate.

 

Your concerns are being heard, there's now two pages of dialogue with staff. We acknowledge the concept community exists, I said prior that they're a friendly and creative community on GTAF and they long have been. We don't want you guys to feel like you have to move elsewhere, but at the same time we aren't going to change how we deal with rule breaks because you tell us to, and we won't sit quietly and take ultimatums from users.

 

  

1 hour ago, Cebra said:

And I'll reiterate: nowhere in the rules does it say we can't talk passively about another user. He was tagged directly once and all subsequent conversation has been about moving beyond his fraud. A very, very far cry from harassment, or any other rule.

 

  

13 hours ago, The Coconut Kid said:

IThere are only two things that have been asked of Staff here:

 

• Acknowledge our concerns.
• Deal with the person in a way that is compassionate but acknowledges what they’ve done is wrong. Literally: “Your friends have missed you and they care about you – but what you’ve done is wrong. Dry out, come back in a few months, and don’t be a c*nt.”

 

This particular example doesn't name the person directly, but everyone here knows who it is aimed at. That person it's aimed at can still read it.

 

I'm not saying anything so far is ban worthy or anything of the sort, my comment was never meant to infer that, but there are comments aimed at him or about his behaviour that are strongly worded, which are, as I explicitly said, verging on harassment.

[universetwisters]

2 hours ago, Spider-Vice said:

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/719247-the-concept-creators-lounge/?do=findComment&comment=1072104548

I know this prob don’t make anything better but, in my defense, Akavari dropped his name first, I just tagged him subsequently. I think those were the first instances of his name being dropped while before that it was one of those “if you know you know” things

 

I think we all wanna know why he did what he did, both staff and us concept folk, but other than giving some cheeky reacts to some of our posts (which he has since removed. HMMMMMMM) he’s been completely silent. It’d be nice to have an explanation as to why he did what he did, but if we never get any I don’t think it’s any real loss in hindsight cuz there’s so many stories about why narcissists do what they do, we can just change the names to fit this situation and get our answer

Edited March 14 by universetwisters

[Cebra]

4 hours ago, Jason said:

For the sake of argument, I'll agree communication could've been better - again, you are not privy to conversations we have with others though - but I have still yet to see anyone take responsability for giving us an ultimatum, anyone criticisng posts calling us shills or other heavy handed posts aimed at staff of Spider. It is alarming, and not a good look, that no one here is willing to take responsibility or otherwise acknowledge that there's been poor comments from members of your community. You and others from the concept community - not the commuity as a whole, fyi - seem content with people saying what they want, even if it's a hostile or otherwise toxic comment, as long as it alligns with your beliefs. Meanwhile, if a member of staff is critical of the behaviour of members of your community then it's "absurd".

I appreciate the concessions you've sprinkled throughout this post but there are still plenty of things that are unfair or just false and this is one of them. You keep framing Coco's Courthouse post as an ultimatum when I think he illustrated carefully on the last page (with direct quotes!) how his language was not forceful - he said he would leave if this was not handled properly on the back of over a year's worth of staff leaving him in the dark on things not at all related to this fiasco. I will let him say his piece if he wishes to any further but I think he's made it quite clear in this thread that this is much, much more broad than this specific user not getting banned: and all of those points (raised by several different users) have been consistently ignored by Spider Vice in favor of snarky remarks as anyone in here can plainly see

 

I'm not really sure what to make of your claims about 'poor comments' either. Mainly I'd like to actually see what you're talking about because I have not seen a single one in the vein of what you seem to be getting at. Several people have very matter-of-factly aired their disappointment with the way this was handled but this is what I meant earlier by maligning the community. 'Posts calling us shills' - please point me to a single one of those because the fallout here is restricted entirely to this thread and the Lounge in Series, and that language has literally not appeared once from anyone involved. It is actually incredibly easy to just put 'shill' in the search bar and see how often Spider Vice is called one in virtually every other section of the forum, though, so I'd appreciate it if you were a bit more judicious in how you used that word. Nobody here has called anybody a shill nor have they given any indication to believe this so I'm not sure how it could alarm you!

 

4 hours ago, Jason said:

Further, the situation with the user was dealt with and as stated previously, you are not privy to conversations we have with other members, or what punishments they have received.

Nobody was asking for specifics. People wanted to know if the accounts were banned. This used to be a basic function of the forum with the BUSTED system, or when banned profiles were no longer able to be clicked on. It's a completely reasonable request and, I think, not hard to understand why people would be upset when they don't have the same transparency any more and staff refuses to engage on even the most basic level of acknowledgement.

 

4 hours ago, Jason said:

None of what you said is factually correct. We do not, under any circumstances, allow multiple active accounts. We have a long history of finding them and dealing with them, and our standard method of dealing with them is to message the account owner and telling him/her to pick one account and stick to it, and we'll ban the others. Your hypothetical is not completely reasonable, it's factually incorrect information.

I don't see how a hypothetical can be 'factually incorrect'. My point was that when using alts is seemingly something that can be classified as 'incredibly tame' by staff when used in order to undermine the creative endeavors of other users and antagonize them by referring to their work as 'absolute garbage', the logic follows that it is not a tenable stance. This is mainly because, it's worth mentioning, the staff did not 'find' or 'deal' with either of the alts in question until they were reported to the staff by Coco. One of the accounts has been around for two years, the other for ten. Ten years! So to illustrate that point, if every one of us in concepts decided to go out and make as many alts as there were in this situation, you'd be dealing with astroturfing in the dozens. Does that sound like something readily handled? Because idk

 

4 hours ago, Jason said:

Your concerns are being heard, there's now two pages of dialogue with staff. We acknowledge the concept community exists, I said prior that they're a friendly and creative community on GTAF and they long have been.

I appreciate you having it out with us here. I do. I also appreciate the other members of staff who have been willing to discuss this in a level-headed way. But I don't appreciate how it had to come to this because nobody was willing to extend Coco the same courtesy in private, and I don't appreciate Spider Vice coming in here to light a powder keg with his condescension and refusal to address any good faith posts. The fact you've had to obliquely condemn his attitude several times at this point speaks for itself

 

4 hours ago, Jason said:

This particular example doesn't name the person directly, but everyone here knows who it is aimed at. That person it's aimed at can still read it.

 

I'm not saying anything so far is ban worthy or anything of the sort, my comment was never meant to infer that, but there are comments aimed at him or about his behaviour that are strongly worded, which are, as I explicitly said, verging on harassment.

I didn't mean to verge! But this doesn't really gibe with the way harassment is described in the rules or by any common definition even if it's only supposedly verging. The only reason this was dealt with at all was because it was discovered and reported by the community, not from the top down. Everyone is aware of what happened and who is responsible - unless you're using extreme latitude to a questionable extent there's plainly no rule against indirectly referencing things like this. Everyone deserves their opportunity to mourn what he once represented to them and voice the extent of this betrayal. But harassment, no - he's not being tagged repeatedly, not being name called, and not even being maligned beyond a summary of what happened. This will pass, he will be forgotten.

 

Edit: Now that the user in question is actively posting in Series implying that this situation over the alts is a grand conspiracy not to be taken at face value, further guidance on where harassment starts and ends would be greatly appreciated

Edited March 14 by Cebra

[universetwisters]

1 hour ago, Cebra said:

I appreciate you having it out with us here. I do.

FWIW Jason is a pretty cool guy. Eh moderator and doesn’t afraid of anything 

[Jason]

7 hours ago, Cebra said:

he said he would leave if this was not handled properly on the back of over a year's worth of staff leaving him in the dark on things not at all related to this fiasco.

 

"properly". The situation was handled in line with how we handle multiple account situations. The implication that he (or the community) would leave if it was not handled how they wanted is an ultimatum. Again, using words such as please and thank you don't change this. He was respectful, to a degree, but an ultimatum is an ultimatum. It immediately puts staff in a position where unless we make a special exception for Coco and the people he represents, they will leave the forum. Our rules have been criticised, and I'm not saying they're above criticism, and we have been criticised for "not knowing" the concept community, which I'm not saying is above criticism either, but at the same time, there is a clear lack of understanding on how we moderate this forum from your side, and this as resulted in the ultimatum being placed, and when not complied with, further issues. That's not our fault, it's yours.

 

Again, an ultimatum is inherently toxic and hostile, and it is no surprise it was met with a frustrated response. Two wrongs don't make a right but once again, you can't criticise one persons reaction without first looking at and criticising the action that led to it.

 

7 hours ago, Cebra said:

I'm not really sure what to make of your claims about 'poor comments' either. Mainly I'd like to actually see what you're talking about because I have not seen a single one in the vein of what you seem to be getting at.

 

https://gtaforums.com/topic/989268-parting-thoughts/#comment-1072104249

https://gtaforums.com/topic/989268-parting-thoughts/#comment-1072104254

https://gtaforums.com/topic/989268-parting-thoughts/#comment-1072104290

 

All of these comments either insinuate something that's not true, directly insult staff (either individually or as a group) and in general show a complete lack of understanding on how moderation works on GTAF. They're all poor comments that did nothing to further discussion.

 

7 hours ago, Cebra said:

Nobody was asking for specifics. People wanted to know if the accounts were banned. This used to be a basic function of the forum with the BUSTED system, or when banned profiles were no longer able to be clicked on. It's a completely reasonable request and, I think, not hard to understand why people would be upset when they don't have the same transparency any more and staff refuses to engage on even the most basic level of acknowledgement.

 

And "Busted" now no longer exists. Again, you aren't privy to any information relating to how a user is punished or otherwise spoken to. That is not for us to tell people, it is, if the individual wants, on the individual. There are parts of this whole situation where I can perhaps sit and say communication could have been better, but on this particular point, that would again be a case of a complete misunderstanding on how we moderate the forum.

 

7 hours ago, Cebra said:

I don't see how a hypothetical can be 'factually incorrect'. My point was that when using alts is seemingly something that can be classified as 'incredibly tame' by staff when used in order to undermine the creative endeavors of other users and antagonize them by referring to their work as 'absolute garbage', the logic follows that it is not a tenable stance. This is mainly because, it's worth mentioning, the staff did not 'find' or 'deal' with either of the alts in question until they were reported to the staff by Coco. One of the accounts has been around for two years, the other for ten. Ten years! So to illustrate that point, if every one of us in concepts decided to go out and make as many alts as there were in this situation, you'd be dealing with astroturfing in the dozens. Does that sound like something readily handled? Because idk

 

It is factually incorrect, because it is a hypothetical based on the premise that we allow multiple accounts and we don't. As for how long it took to discover these accounts, that isn't a gotcha. We do not have any sort of automated software to determine multiple account users, the way we usually discover them is when someone breaks the forum rules and we investigate them further, often that is triggered from user reports which we have always relied on to help moderate the forum. We don't have the time, or sanity, to check every single user on the forum to see if they're using multiple accounts. You were right to come to us with this case and we appreciate that, but you were not right to tell us how to handle it.

 

7 hours ago, Cebra said:

The fact you've had to obliquely condemn his attitude several times at this point speaks for itself

 

What I've said regarding Spider's "attitude" is that frustration doesn't come from no where.  The fact not one person from your community has been able to criticise any of your fellow concept community members regarding how we were approached (the ultimatum), or have been willing to accept other poor comments or behaviour speaks much worse.

 

FWIW, I'm not expecting everyone to sit down and sing kumbaya at this point, but if there's an acknowledgement that there were mistakes made on all sides, then perhaps we can just say fair enough, situation over and dealt with, lets all move on.

[The Coconut Kid]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

FWIW, I'm not expecting everyone to sit down and sing kumbaya at this point, but if there's an acknowledgement that there were mistakes made on all sides, then perhaps we can just say fair enough, situation over and dealt with, lets all move on.

Jason,

 

The situation is that I have been lost as a regular contributor to GTAF. Multiple regulars have expressed their concerns. There are problems here.

 

I was lost the moment I discovered someone I considered a friend and creator-collaborator of fifteen years had been using multiple accounts to mislead and manipulate several forum members and has continued to do so. It hasn’t seemed to register with GTAF staff that there are ongoing user relationships involved here and I don’t mind confiding that – but it is extremely disappointing that the significance of these relationships has been completely disregarded.

 

This situation has involved people I care about – on both sides. The real dilemma was to decide how to act here. I explored every possibility that this person wasn't responsible for this behaviour before I escalated to a report. I raised my concerns privately to see if they were shared.

 

An action where I report a significant member of the GTAF community is not one I have had to take before. I knew it was going to affect people. I knew already that I was going to have to move on, rather than continue to share the community with them, and I wanted that to take place with as minimal disruption as possible.

 

How can I go about this? Do I put my trust in someone I have known for such a long time to discontinue their behaviour? Actually, I did. I call them out. And they stop. Everything is sweet. It’s great to have them back. Then their games begin again. It is beginning to effect numerous people and there is no choice except to report them.

 

You will notice from my account activity that I stepped back as an active poster there and then.

 

I have to put my trust in GTAF staff from this point onwards – and this is the part of my experience that has prompted this thread.

 

I have asked for one thing to be taken from this post and not one of you have actually considered that from our position: your rules and resolution policies have not worked. GTAF Staff have actually worked in unity throughout this post to alienate the concerns that have been raised - and they are legitimate. You have acknowledged yourself that communication hasn't been great, so please listen from our perspective when we tell you why this has been so.

 

You do not have to go back and reverse your decision, but I really need to ask GTAF Staff to include provisions for future manipulative and misleading behaviour for when future issues arise. Accounts are not just post counts. They are people – and they are affected by the actions of other people. It is not for GTAF Staff to demean these concerns when they are brought to them.

 

We are, collectively, in a much worse position than when I approached staff in the first place. And on a personal level, I have been left far more upset with the staff response in this thread than I am with the original behaviour I reported. I can eat responsibility for how this has turned out. I also need staff to eat their share and learn from it.

 

How do we learn from this and do better?

 

Look at this from the perspective of someone who is totally unfamiliar with GTAF staff and has had to approach them with a serious concern for the first time. Please separate any of the usernames and any of the context and opinions you’ve associated with this post so far and just focus on that.

 

I haven’t been comfortable just approaching anyone. It’s a good idea to ask why this is. We don’t have any interactions with staff – but that is another issue entirely. I decide to approach a moderator who is kind enough to spend their time going through the process of what will happen with me. We go back and forth and I supply the report. I can’t fault the conduct of this staff member and they have made me feel our issue has been taken seriously. They are an example to be followed.

 

There is a resolution and I disagree with it. I have previously been told there is a separate forum called The Courthouse where issues can be discussed in depth with all staff. I explain my confusion at the outcome, thank them for their time and escalate it to there.

 

Now remember - I don’t actually know GTAF Staff. I am aware Admin and Moderator is a privileged and respected position and that you are senior members of our community. I'll admit there are expectations that come with that - and these certainly didn't account for the responses from Staff received here. I assembled a lengthy post with extensive proof because it felt like a prerequisite for dealing with the users who manage affairs on these forums. This has also since been mocked.

 

You have also taken issue with the tone of my post (after initially presenting here as a cool head) and I am sorry you feel that way. But what has really been needed here is for GTAF Staff to say that they are sorry that we feel this way. This can’t be a one-way conversation - or trading blows if blows are actually being thrown. You’ve referred to “two pages of dialogue with staff,” but it has felt more like a character assassination than constructive discussion.

 

I digress. The Courthouse post has gone completely unanswered and I have been given no indication that it would be answered. It has apparently caused that much concern and offense among staff that no one has bothered to acknowledge it and heavily reprimand me like they have here.

 

The Courthouse has generated nothing at all – and it is fair for me to question that. You can take from this that if there can be a better process to resolve disputes, then it might be worth putting that in place. It doesn’t work for anyone to redirect people there and leave their concerns unseen - especially when it has been difficult to approach staff in the first place.

 

I have given you the genuine suggestion that the best way to go about this is for staff to make their presence more widely known – especially in the concept community where they would be welcomed. There are GTAF Staff of the highest level who, in this thread, have dismissed concerns outright and diminished them as low-grade drama. They have shut down conversation multiple times with we are staff and we know best – you are not staff don’t argue with our decisions.

 

How is it possible to have an open dialogue when that is the line taken? This kind of response essentially alienates and ostracises anyone who might want to reach out with an issue in future. I am leaving this feeling worse off than when I wrote this post.

 

I have been lost as a regular contributor to GTAF – and none of this has been to ask you to win me back or has been presented as an ultimatum. The only reference to my user status you have received is this:

  

On 3/8/2023 at 5:31 PM, The Coconut Kid said:

I can’t share this community with him right now and I will likely move on from posting here.

You can understand how frustrated I am then that you’ve built your responses to me – and others – around a handful of words. You can understand how I would feel that the point has been completely missed.

 

The fact that more space has been given to defend a problem user than has been given to genuine suggestions is a sad end to a post history that has been built on collaboration, encouragement, and mutual respect. I have asked (I have not demanded and I have not issued an ultimatum) for you to explore my polite suggestions so that you can do better for the people who remain here. Please respect this and continue the discussion from here.

 

This is a good place for me to leave this. I would like to direct anyone who wants to weigh in from here to the post made by @Raavi where they have indicated that GTAF staff are responsive to user suggestions and feedback:

  

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Your feedback is always welcome and member suggestions, ideas and concerns are regularly discussed and where appropriate action is taken.

Let’s discuss how things can be done better for everyone and the situation can be moved on from there.

 

Thank you.

[sivispacem]

I think this has run it's course. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, The Coconut Kid said:

The situation is that I have been lost as a regular contributor to GTAF. Multiple regulars have expressed their concerns. There are problems here.

 

I was lost the moment I discovered someone I considered a friend and creator-collaborator of fifteen years had been using multiple accounts to mislead and manipulate several forum members and has continued to do so. It hasn’t seemed to register with GTAF staff that there are ongoing user relationships involved here and I don’t mind confiding that – but it is extremely disappointing that the significance of these relationships has been completely disregarded.

 

Your relationship with the user is absolutely none of our concern and to even imply that is should matter shows a very poor understanding of how forums and other social community sites work. What you and another use have going on between you is your problem, not a forum problem, we can't be asked to police relationships. It does become a forum problem when forum rules are broke, which you informed us of, and we dealt with it in line with how we've dealt with similar situations in the past.

 

We strive to keep a community together, yes, but at the same time not everything is our problem. An emerging theme of your issues is that you, again, expected a preset outcome that was not only not fitting with how we traditionally moderate the forum, but also beyond what is fair for us to do.

 

As we further discuss the issue new bits and pieces are getting tacked on resulting in what is a fairly straight forward issue becoming a giant heap of spaghetti that's teetering on the edge of now not being coherently thought out.

 

10 minutes ago, The Coconut Kid said:

I have asked for one thing to be taken from this post and not one of you have actually considered that from our position: your rules and resolution policies have not worked. GTAF Staff have actually worked in unity throughout this post to alienate the concerns that have been raised - and they are legitimate. You have acknowledged yourself that communication hasn't been great, so please listen from our perspective when we tell you why this has been so.

 

First of all, you are criticising us for dismissing your points, while at the same time completely and utterly ignoring the origin of a key issue you presented, which was the fact you issued an ultimatum, you were hostile. As I've said, two potential wrongs don't make a right, but this handwaving away any wrong doing on yours or others part has become a serious issue. You can ignore it and try and circle it back to your point, but when that ultimatum is a root cause of things you have take issue with, it cannot be ignored.

 

Again, you were respectful, and have continued to be, but an ultimatum is an ultimatum. You put us in a bad spot, on the back foot. You can claim it wasn't intended and I don't disbelieve you, but that was the hand you dealt us. If we didn't comply with how you wanted, you and your community would be disappointed. We didn't comply how you wanted (we handled the individual as normal) and... low and behold, you are disappointed. What you said would happen did happen, because you issued an ultimatum.

 

Second, you have criticised our rules and resolution policies despite having a poor understanding of how they work. To repeat, our multiple account rules are clear, they are not allowed, it is clearly stated. No action taken has at any point contradicted that, but somehow there are numerous comments and hypotheticals acting as if they are allowed. Further, you are not at all privy to any sort of information relating to the individual who has broken the rules, the conversations we've had, or any punishments we have dished out. This is very much intentional, to avoid witch hunting, name and shaming, and just to respect a persons general privacy. 

 

I'd also point out that further above it was said by a member of the concept community that they effectively moderate the concept community how they see fit, including having an open court, or a kangaroo court. I'm aware you probably have private platforms, a Discord or whatever, and how you run those is up to you, but to brazenly say they can moderate their community on this forum how they see fit is a further sign that there's a clear misunderstanding of forum rules.

 

21 minutes ago, The Coconut Kid said:

This is a good place for me to leave this.

 

As I said before, at this point I don't expect everyone to sit round the campfire and and sing songs together, and I just noticed siv's lockpost as I typed this and I generally agree with him on that matter, it's starting to circle around a lot.

 

So to close, personally I would say that it would be a shame if we lost a valued part of the GTAF community over something like this, but at the same time, there's been a lot of misunderstanding regarding rules and general forum procedural and regulation that have resulted in criticism that is unfair and unfounded. Lastly, there's two sides to every story and people need to look at what causes reactions and not just the reactions them selves. Two wrongs don't make a right, but fixing one wrong won't solve the core problem, so going forward if you are to ask us to do better then I would kindly ask you to do better as well.