Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: Luis Dias on July 14, 2011, 03:25:56 pm
-
Recently in the past few days we've had some cute gendisk dramas, with some members joyfully ignoring or stretching the forum rules in an high spirited manner. The end result is that very well known members such as Battuta, sigtau, Hades, Snail and Fury (and I might be missing someone here) have ended up monkeyed or banned (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=76988.msg1530824#msg1530824).
Later in the #Hard-light channel, some of them confirmed they have problems accessing key server functions, which is an impediment to work-flow in their own campaigns. Like Battuta said in the chatroom, this state of affairs is worrysome because very productive members of the HLP are being thrown out despite their awesome contributions to this community.
I'd add that it wasn't "despite", it was *because*. Fury got himself a month's worth of ban because he ought to "lead by example" for being a "former admin". Battuta was monkeyed for two weeks for expressing himself somewhat badly in his self-deprecation.
Personally I understand the need to enforce rules. But clearly something's not working right here, and very productive people that do indeed invest so many time, effort and love into creating so much beauty, maintaining a game for so many years and still improving it, still continuing the stories, stretching the game dynamics and narratives to unprecedented levels.... are just being thrown out as vandals.
So I propose something different
In order to (1) enforce the necessary rules and (2) stop the current system of being banned or monkeyed for the first errors that some more strict moderators will find within a thread I propose that a more clear protocol to deal with these "out-of-lines" be put in place.
I propose the following protocol as an example or blueprint (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/announcements/membership-agreement-t76.html#p692866), that I am quoting from another forum. One which, IMHO, works pretty damn ****ing well and no one ever complained about it in any venue whatsoever. I borrrow it from RationalSkepticism.org and it is well written.
Here:
Moderation
The consequences for breaching the Membership Agreement will be based on the seriousness of the offence, and this judgement will fall entirely on the moderators' discretion. The Moderation Team use a range of strategies to address breaches of the Membership Agreement. These include:
• Moderator Advice
• Warnings
• Suspensions
• Banning
When possible and when appropriate, Moderator Advice and Warnings will be issued publicly, usually in the thread where the breach occurs. The Moderation Team may also use private messages and emails if they feel it is more appropriate to do so.
Threads or posts that breach the Membership Agreement may be removed from view at the discretion of the Moderation Team.
2.2.1 Moderator Advice
Moderator Advice may be issued within Modnotes as general advice to all members or may be directed to particular members. If a member is given Moderator Advice they will be notified via PM and a record will be made on their profile. There is no minimum or maximum number of times a member may be issued Moderator Advice before a stronger action (such as a warning) is taken.
Unlike Warnings (see below), Moderator Advice does not accumulate to result in suspensions.
2.2.2 Warnings
In most instances, staff will advise posters to post according to the terms in the Member Agreement. If a poster ignores this advice then breaches of the Member Agreement may result in a Warning, which will remain active for 6 months.
When deciding whether to issue Moderator Advice or a Warning for a breach, the Moderation Team consider the:
• member’s posting history;
• history of previous Moderator Advice issued to the member;
• context of the breach; and
• severity of the breach.
2.2.3 Suspensions
If a poster accrues warnings, they will lead to suspensions as follows:
3rd active warning - 1 week suspension
4th active warning - 1 month suspension
5th active warning - 6 month suspension
After 6 months, the poster can return with a clean record but will have a probationary period of 6 months. During the probationary period, warnings will lead to suspensions as follows:
1st active warning - 1 week suspension + 1 month extension of probationary period
2nd active warning - 1 month suspension + 1 month extension of probationary period
3rd active warning - 1 year suspension + 1 year probationary period
2.2.4 Banning
Bans from the forum are permanent and are issued at the discretion of the Moderation Team for:
• Spammers (members who register to advertise or promote a business or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services without explicit permission and/or having a Supporting Vendor status with rationalskepticism.org.)
• Sockpuppet accounts (see below for further information)
• Trolls (members who the Moderation Team consider have registered with an intention to engage in trolling behaviour and/or whose forum posting history predominantly comprises trolling behaviour with relatively minimal constructive content).
• Members who have engaged in extremely inappropriate behaviour either on the Forum or via PM.
2.2.5 Consequences for registering a sockpuppet account
All sockpuppet accounts are banned upon detection. Registering a sockpuppet account will lead to suspensions or banning as follows, depending on the member status of the primary account holder:
• current member - 6 month suspension
• deactivated member - 6 month suspension from the time they request re-activation
• suspended member – extension of suspension by 6 months
Any member, whether current, deactivated or suspended, who creates a second sockpuppet account will be banned from the forum.
2.3. Appeals & Complaints
If you have been subject to moderation you can formally appeal that action and the Moderation Team is obligated to respond to all such appeals. To make a formal appeal you can:
• Send a PM to a member of the Moderation Team to state you wish to make a formal appeal. Preferably, in the first instance, a PM would be sent to the moderator who issued the action and then if the member isn't happy with the outcome they may choose to PM a Global Moderator and/or the Senior Moderator;
• Start a ‘Formal Appeal’ thread in the Feedback Forum.
Members who have been suspended or banned can appeal moderation actions by emailing [email protected].
Now, the HLP document may differ tremendously, and I am only posting this one here for reference. I have to say that this protocol alures me for the following reasons:
- It's tremendously specific and clear. No subjectivity is allowed, no random judgements happen.
- It is forgiving, in the sense that you officially have to be warned before being banned. This allows "cooling off" fade time and avoids drama. So it's good.
- Lessens the arbitrariness of things and judges everyone equally. I was somewhat amazed at Goober's reasoning that Fury should pay more because he was a "former admin" (not even a current one). Although I understand the rationale behind it, was it really fair? Did Fury know that he risked so much more than his fellow members? And the price he pays for contributing so much in HLP is this way? We should try to avoid the randomness of it. All members are treated equally and there are rules for how long they should be banned, etc. All know their place and all are happy. Even with more dedicated moderators ;);
- Continuity of this amazing community isn't threatened by judicial shenanigans
This is my 2 cents on the matter. This kind of protocol might require some back-end work inside the forum's code, so that these warnings may be trackable by the moderators, I don't know if this thing is already built in. What say you?
-
Seeing as nearly a third of Inferno's active staff have been monkeyed over the last week (Sad thought, I know) I'm curious as to how the monkeying process works. Are monkeyed members still allowed to post in projects they are members of?
-
Yes. Monkeys have (or should have) full access to their mods' respective internal forums.
-
Oh GOD no!
There is no way I'm ever going to agree to some formal system of punishments for transgressions. When you see someone being banned for 6 months for their 3rd ban even though their offence was something minor you'd realise how absolutely retarded this idea was.
You've basically called for replacing what you call random judgements with a system that is equivalent of the California "3 strikes you're out" system.
-
As I said, I quoted this for reference. Specific "times" could change, and perhaps should given the more laissez faire nature of this forum.
Notice also the detail of these warnings only being in effect for 6 months. Meaning that if you are warned now, next year you're clean. Perhaps 6 months is "too much" for HLP. Great, lets discuss this, if you want.
IRC people weren't too keen on these ideas though. Well take them as you will. I think that seeing so many people being monkeyed and banned, either the people around here are retarded, which I don't believe them to be despite what happened in r34, or the current system is just insane.
-
I'm always happy to try to improve the system around here but your idea is unworkable in my opinion. In fact it gets in the way of discussion about sensible ideas.
-
Sure, I think that's a great idea!
-
Battuta was monkeyed for two weeks for expressing himself somewhat badly in his self-deprecation.
Battuta was monkeyed for the last in a long string of offences. He'd been warned several times that his actions would lead to a ban of some sort yet kept on pushing it. The thread had actually been reported and it was the entire tone of the "If you don't agree with me, you're dumb" style of posting that got him banned, not some simple misunderstanding.
As for the others, while there is some internal discussion going on about the type and duration of the sentence for Fury and those who followed his example it's pretty hard to justify a former admin not knowing that if he has an issue with a post, or the moderation thereof, he should simply report it rather than attempting to lead some crazy revolution by reposting the offending material. The fact that others were dumb enough to follow his example thinking that there would be no repercussions is exactly why it's the wrong way to handle things.
Whether posting the original image should be a banning offence is a completely different issue to directly challenging the HLP moderation and administration by reposting something that has already gotten someone banned. Had Fury and the others simply complained that the sentence was too harsh or that the image should be allowed and that Goober had overreacted we'd be looking at a completely different issue.
-
Doohohohooo Fury here. :p
I know I am for all intents and purposes avoiding my ban, I couldn't resist posting here. :D
Had Fury and the others simply complained that the sentence was too harsh or that the image should be allowed and that Goober had overreacted we'd be looking at a completely different issue.
Now, where's the fun in that? All I wanted was see how Goober reacts and I got that. It was fun, especially the bit where he went ahead on irc to claim I should've been banned permanently. Even more funnier was to see how many others reacted to the banning and what he said on irc. Certainly got my spirits high, as if I was drunk to boot. For all the grief Goober's caused on me over the years, I do jump on every opportunity (well, many at least) to mess with him. Childish? Most definitely. Fun? Oh yes! Had nothing to lose even if I were to be permanently banned as a result, so I had no reason not to jump on this opportunity.
So, not a revolution. Just got nice kicks out of it.
Which reminds me. What's the point in banning someone from the forums and still leave him full access to the server and all data on it? Certain individuals even tried to coerce me into locking Goober permanently out of the server (among other things). Now that would've been fun to see, but dealing with the fallout would have been way too much trouble to be worth it.
Oh, since my ban is likely going to be extended because I registered an alt, a week would be nice. My summer vacation will be over when the 5 week ban is done with. :lol:
Edit: Banned folk on irc wanted to let you know that they knew they'd be banned. They still went ahead for reasons I can guess were much like mine. To mess with Goober.
-
Actually, I find your ban richly amusing, considering your tendency to play fast and loose with the warez half of the rule that was used for justification.
-
Time to bring this bad boy back:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=65812.msg1305082#msg1305082
-
Now, where's the fun in that? All I wanted was see how Goober reacts and I got that. It was fun, especially the bit where he went ahead on irc to claim I should've been banned permanently. Even more funnier was to see how many others reacted to the banning and what he said on irc. Certainly got my spirits high, as if I was drunk to boot. For all the grief Goober's caused on me over the years, I do jump on every opportunity (well, many at least) to mess with him. Childish? Most definitely. Fun? Oh yes! Had nothing to lose even if I were to be permanently banned as a result, so I had no reason not to jump on this opportunity.
Why, really? You were demonstrating your contempt for both the rules of the forum and your reputation as a veteran member of the community. Your actions indicate that you regard those as less meaningful or less important than the brief opportunity to "mess with" someone else -- one of many opportunities you have had before and undoubtedly will have again. Worse, three other members followed your lead and now find themselves banned as well.
And it's not like I'm going to lose any sleep over this or spend hours gnashing my teeth at your audacity. If I see a flagrant violation of the rules, I issue a ban. The only part of that that requires any thought is determining the appropriate length of the ban. And as I have posted elsewhere, the people who did it as a joke got far less time off than the people who did it in defiance.
Which reminds me. What's the point in banning someone from the forums and still leave him full access to the server and all data on it? Certain individuals even tried to coerce me into locking Goober permanently out of the server (among other things). Now that would've been fun to see, but dealing with the fallout would have been way too much trouble to be worth it.
Because even though you can be a jackass on occasion, you're not THAT big of a jackass. You've come to the rescue of the forum many times in the past and you wouldn't pull an IPAndrews just for the sake of tweaking an admin. I haven't lost ALL respect for you, it may surprise you to learn.
-
Doohohohooo Fury here. :p
I know I am for all intents and purposes avoiding my ban, I couldn't resist posting here. :D
And because you deliberately decided to knowing avoid a ban, I banned your alt to the same level as your primary. They will both expire at the same time, which is likely far more lenient than is deserved, especially under the argument that you really should know better.
Had Fury and the others simply complained that the sentence was too harsh or that the image should be allowed and that Goober had overreacted we'd be looking at a completely different issue.
Now, where's the fun in that? All I wanted was see how Goober reacts and I got that. It was fun, especially the bit where he went ahead on irc to claim I should've been banned permanently. Even more funnier was to see how many others reacted to the banning and what he said on irc. Certainly got my spirits high, as if I was drunk to boot. For all the grief Goober's caused on me over the years, I do jump on every opportunity (well, many at least) to mess with him. Childish? Most definitely. Fun? Oh yes! Had nothing to lose even if I were to be permanently banned as a result, so I had no reason not to jump on this opportunity.
So, not a revolution. Just got nice kicks out of it.
And rather like poking an alligators tongue, knowing that it's a biological reflex that it will snap it's mouth shut, but figuring that what, you're fast enough to avoid getting your arm chomped off? Well, guess what. You are not.
Having fun is one thing. We all want to have fun. We thrive on the high spirit genuine jests and banter. We thrive on the creativity and collaboration. What we don't need is somebody turning that into swill and spewing it about in the form of a personal vendetta and causing for it to negatively impact other members.
Which reminds me. What's the point in banning someone from the forums and still leave him full access to the server and all data on it? Certain individuals even tried to coerce me into locking Goober permanently out of the server (among other things). Now that would've been fun to see, but dealing with the fallout would have been way too much trouble to be worth it.
Good question. When you decided to resign (again), it wasn't thought that it would be necessary, especially considering (and in consideration of) all the work you have done for Hard-Light over the years of your membership. But because you have a personal snit with ONE person and have decided that you'll show no regard "because it's fun", this has been corrected. Your information is still present in the system for whenever you decide to regain your senses and let this childish behaviour cease, but until then, it has been de-activated.
Oh, since my ban is likely going to be extended because I registered an alt, a week would be nice. My summer vacation will be over when the 5 week ban is done with. :lol:
No, I think the days of you getting what you want are at a close. Damn shame really. It really was nice working with you and being coached by you. And now you've gone and decided to jump off a cliff. I can only hope you packed a parachute.
Edit: Banned folk on irc wanted to let you know that they knew they'd be banned. They still went ahead for reasons I can guess were much like mine. To mess with Goober.
That is a bit disturbing, really. And there are far better ways to do this while keeping it friendly, and in good spirit, than going and performing actions that are detrimental to their ability to continue with their contributions.
-
That is a bit disturbing, really.
And astonishing. An utter surprise to me, until I went to see what was going on in IRC and found myself cornered between 12 year old pricks. Then I understood.
-
The fact that you were trying your very best to be a prick didn't have anything to do with it, no siree.
-
LOL
-
I say we settle this in 'It's a Knockout' fashion, everyone gets a rubber mallet and has to stand on a big pole. Last one standing wins, seeing as well all seem to be headed in that direction, let's just throw off any pretence.
The first banning was a bit severe, but I can see Goobers point, there's a slippery slope just waiting to happen where we all start procrastinating about what constitutes an offence under the rules, better to lay some foundations and stick by them. The later bannings were expected by the people who made the posts, so they got what they wanted, everyone's happy.
As for IRC, I simply don't bother with it much, if people are going to go in there, it's up to them, but HLP Forum has always distanced itself from the IRC channel with good reason, because it's not nearly as strongly Moderated as the Forum itself, I think we could benefit from stressing this more on the link to the IRC channel or the MOTD.
As for making a second account and coming in here simply to rub salt in the wound, well, normally I'd simply say it's abuse, but once again the Moderators are caught in the trap of someone who can be a massive boon to the Forum occasionally behaving in a very juvenile manner, it's a trend in here that is growing uncomfortably. In Fury's defence though, he drew the line at locking Goober out of the Forums. What worries me more is that there were people in IRC who wanted him to do it, that doesn't speak well of it at all.
There's been a growing trend of 'Trolls for lulz' around here, particularly in GenDis I'm not sure who or what started it, though I have my suspicions, but it needs to stop before it gets out of hand.
-
In fact it gets in the way of discussion about sensible ideas.
And it seems Fury has managed to do exactly what I mentioned here on a slightly different subject. If he was hoping to change anything he should realise he made it actually harder to make any change.
-
Its as if he was trying hard to prove Goober's right.
-
Yep, he couldn't have done a better job undermined the argument against Goober banning him if he'd he'd tried any harder.
-
I didn't get the sense that he's trying to change anything. More like, "If I bump this 10-year-old thread it will be funneh and I will get b&. :D" And it was. And he did.
-
Thing is, we're not somethingawful and we're not /tg/, we don't want and we're not really equipped for that sort of crap.
-
That is a bit disturbing, really.
And astonishing. An utter surprise to me, until I went to see what was going on in IRC and found myself cornered between 12 year old pricks. Then I understood.
The fact that you were trying your very best to be a prick didn't have anything to do with it, no siree.
Woo, logging: http://pastebin.com/HGFBRXhS
-
Actually that log speaks to my defense if anything.
-
Since I'm back for the time being (as per Zacam's reversal of the affecting bans, since we've all served some time for this anyways), I feel like it's my place to contribute to putting an end to something that I started but was never intended to get this far.
When I first posted the image to the Rule 34 thread, my goal was simple--to get a reaction from the community and viewers of the thread. The initial post of the thread stated that Rule 34 had not yet applied to FreeSpace, and because I knew otherwise, I thought it would be hilariously ironic to see everyone running in all directions when they realize that rule 34 does, indeed, apply.
However, getting a weeklong ban didn't sit well with me. I posted the ban message into IRC, where Fury, Snail, and Hades were watching and wondering why the hell such a harsh punishment was employed against me in the first place. I don't have logs to clarify this (because frankly, there was enough drama as it is, and I don't want to go digging for it), but somewhere in there, many other members in the channel agreed that the punishment was harsh and that the administrator in question was either completely fascist or too trigger-happy to be left in control.
However, for the ones who got banned, they had different ideas. I don't represent the opinions of all people banned in this ****storm, but I do understand a few things that they agreed upon.
The purpose of reposting the image in the first place, based on what they've said, was:
- to irritate the administrator who banned me in the first place, and
- to prove the point that one single administrator doesn't need to be able to ban without consulting the other administrators first.
Any idea of a petty 'revolution' or attempting to instigate change is totally unrelated to the motivations of those who reposted the image.
Yes, it was immature, and I admit that fully; however, it was only intended to be taken as a joke. The idea of a 'revolution' in the first place originated somewhere that wasn't the four people who were banned over this, and any other external motivation beyond "we reposted for the lulz" seems to be completely irrelevant.
While I'm here, I'd also like to apologize for being a starting factor in such a ****storm. I just find it curious how me posting an image to an internet forum can cause such a stormcloud, no matter how you look at it.
-
I did it for the lulz.
This is no longer lulzy, this is dumb, can we stop now please?
-
@sigtau: butterflies.
@Snail: .... ahhh just forget it.
-
Well if the problem with authority some individuals seem to be having is not just that they got banned but the duration of said ban I propose an idea for the moderators. Banning of any user for more than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. In other words moderators can issue day long bans as they see fit for individuals to cool their jets when they get out of line but any banning period longer than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. That will ensure that no one moderator can go on a power trip of some kind and the user who gets banned knows it just wasn't just one moderator who felt they deserved a prolonged time out.
-
That's a simple but efficient idea
-
Actually I think the administration is fine as it is. The expectation is that if someone does something that violates the rules they get banned (which, may I point out, is exactly what happened). A lot of people say it was unduly harsh or whatever, but then the bans got repealed after some internal discussion. The system works because moderators and admins don't need to stick to some arbitrary system and can just moderate as they see fit. If someone disagrees then they can go talk about it and work it out.
Now that this is over can we stop going over it?
-
Will you stop trying to shut up people? If you don't like a certain conversation, just ignore it.
-
Actually I think the administration is fine as it is. The expectation is that if someone does something that violates the rules they get banned (which, may I point out, is exactly what happened). A lot of people say it was unduly harsh or whatever, but then the bans got repealed after some internal discussion. The system works because moderators and admins don't need to stick to some arbitrary system and can just moderate as they see fit. If someone disagrees then they can go talk about it and work it out.
Now that this is over can we stop going over it?
+1 to this. How the Administration "Administers" to the board is up to the Administration. We can check and balance each other and we listen to our Moderators as well.
But at the end of the day, an Administrator is still just a person. And we all have our own ways of viewing and handling different things as they happen. Disagreements are bound to happen just as much as agreements are.
I didn't repeal the ban because I thought Goober was wrong. Just to make that clear. A system that doesn't in some way support it self has larger issues to deal with. I did it because I believed it was a fair thing to do after observing the sentiments in the IRC channel, and I'm glad to see the immediate postings that have taken place since the reversal.
Now I have Gorillaz stuck in my head and must play.
-
Will you stop trying to shut up people? If you don't like a certain conversation, just ignore it.
I think you mean to say "Will you stop trying to shut people up".
And it's rather bothersome having to ignore somebody that keeps stirring well after things should be left to rest, so I'll ask you nicely to stop continuing instigating this conversation please.
-
If you'd bothered to look, you'll see that I've refrain to make much more commentary than the OP. Other ideas have come from other people.... if the admins / mods feel this is no longer an issue, then I propose this thread should be closed.
-
If I what?
I wasn't responding to all of your commentary here. I was specifically responding to what I directly quoted, so "if YOU had bothered to look" you would have realized the specificity of my statement with better clarity.
Your original post was actually quite nice. Pity it's all mostly quoted from somewhere else, I was almost ready to applaud. However, we do have our own counsel for how to administrate the board. Suggestions are always welcome, but debate really isn't. Because it's not up to anybody but the Administrators to decide how Administration will be done. Just as it's not up to anybody but Moderators as to how they will Moderate. And when necessary, we (Administrators and Moderators) communicate any differences as necessary or solicit feedback as required.
You like making a lot of proposals. I'm not really feeling inclined to follow any of them today.
-
Well if the problem with authority some individuals seem to be having is not just that they got banned but the duration of said ban I propose an idea for the moderators. Banning of any user for more than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. In other words moderators can issue day long bans as they see fit for individuals to cool their jets when they get out of line but any banning period longer than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. That will ensure that no one moderator can go on a power trip of some kind and the user who gets banned knows it just wasn't just one moderator who felt they deserved a prolonged time out.
Hmm. It has it's points, and it -is- an idea. But an unnecessary one, in my opinion. If somebody DID go on a rampage of abuse, I can guarantee you that it would not last long at all and anything done would be easily reversed. Further, even if somebody didn't go on a rampage, but others felt differently about the matter, or reached a different decision, then conversation and actions already take place as necessary without the need for an enforced mandate or arbitration such as suggested.
Also, to specify, Moderators do not have Ban powers. They can Warn or place people as being "Firewalled". Only Administrators may Ban an account.
-
If I what?
I wasn't responding to all of your commentary here. I was specifically responding to what I directly quoted, so "if YOU had bothered to look" you would have realized the specificity of my statement with better clarity.
Your original post was actually quite nice. Pity it's all mostly quoted from somewhere else, I was almost ready to applaud. However, we do have our own counsel for how to administrate the board. Suggestions are always welcome, but debate really isn't. Because it's not up to anybody but the Administrators to decide how Administration will be done. Just as it's not up to anybody but Moderators as to how they will Moderate. And when necessary, we (Administrators and Moderators) communicate any differences as necessary or solicit feedback as required.
You like making a lot of proposals. I'm not really feeling inclined to follow any of them today.
Zacam I really don't get you. Have I ever said that it was my "right" to apply any kind of rules whatsoever in this forum? I have never done so. What I did was to put some food for thought. Snail, one of the trespassers gets here and is all like "come on shut up about this". Well I'm no monkey of his, thus my reply. Your comment however was filled with atrition against me as if I did something wrong. Well sorry for being interested. I'll be no more.
-
??
Srsly? No. Your initial post was great. All of page 1 was fine especially as "food for thought" as you put it. It was posts -following- sigtau's where deviation began to occur. And that, I think, is more specifically where you were being asked to stop and by one of the members directly affected by the situation that was being discussed, which was really a not-quite-off-topic aside in relation to the Original Post.
So, allow me to be the one that doesn't get where YOU are coming from making these kinds of assumptive statements of yours like you are aggrieved. Because yes, you DID do something wrong. You decided to just walk all over another members polite request to allow -one portion- of the conversation that this thread wasn't even really related to, simply fade off.
Further, the tone of your message (the "if you'd bothered to look" part), though it could just be me as I don't really have all that much interaction with you to begin with, came across as a rather snooty and haughty "lrn2read" in a manner most uncalled for.
It's not a case of who's a monkey for who. I don't get where you think Snail is an outsider in terms of being able to (like anybody else) express an opinion in regards to anything when done in a polite fashion. Especially not in regards to a topic where he is one of the directly affected people being conversed about. I also completely fail to understand how "Now that this is over can we stop going over it?" translate into "shut up about this" or as a high handed gag order. He wasn't requesting a closure of the topic in general or in relation tot he Original First Post, but in regards to other matters related by association.
And as this is supposed to be more about a conversation in regards to the suggestion of the first post or discussion in general about opinions of perception, but instead it's now turning into something slightly mangled and useless, so here is to hoping that a different and more coherent new topic can be created with the purpose of direct and relevant conversation can take place that sticks to the point.