GAF implodes after owner Evilore is accused of sexual assault
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yup. I posted a few days back saying I saw no difference in GAF's posting volume but that has significantly changed with the opening up for open registrations on resetera on Saturday.
How's the B3D thread doing?
gaf is dying due to the 80/20 rule. 80% of the posts were made by 20% of the active membership.
Most of them went to resetera so neogaf is chugging along with low activity posters.
It's worse in community threads where you had thread "champions" who would keep the thread alive. With them gone and not stimulating the conversation, the rest of the community either left or dissolved.
When your 20% majority leave, the passive readers go with them as the amount of new "content" is dramatically reduced. It's a relatively quick death spiral.
Can negaf make a come back? sure but what's the draw for a *new* audience. Tyler needs to work that out and in short order.
I heard about that Spain incident Evilore himself described a few years ago so this isn't very surprising...
Kind of surprised to see how many people are confused or incredulous over the accuser entering a relationship with the guy after the incident. Haven't you ever been in a relationship with someone despite your better judgement, where they abused or manipulated you in some way in the past? Or at least known someone who had. Sometimes people are lonely, desperate, have low esteem, or for some other reason cling to attention and affection even when it comes from a bad place. And maybe they only really see how badly they were mistreated in eventual reflection.
I don't think this was all supposed to be a screed meant to make this guy pay, but just saying that this behavior is totally out of line and people (both men and women) need to not do it.
Kind of surprised to see how many people are confused or incredulous over the accuser entering a relationship with the guy after the incident. Haven't you ever been in a relationship with someone despite your better judgement, where they abused or manipulated you in some way in the past? Or at least known someone who had. Sometimes people are lonely, desperate, have low esteem, or for some other reason cling to attention and affection even when it comes from a bad place. And maybe they only really see how badly they were mistreated in eventual reflection.
I don't think this was all supposed to be a screed meant to make this guy pay, but just saying that this behavior is totally out of line and people (both men and women) need to not do it.
and...here we go...just noticed a user get banned on resetera (albeit only 24hrs) for "wrongthink"
https://www.resetera.com/posts/376488/
I don't agree with the user's post but it's a clear example of mod's banning someone because of "politically incorrect" opinion
https://www.resetera.com/posts/376488/
I don't agree with the user's post but it's a clear example of mod's banning someone because of "politically incorrect" opinion
Yea they shouldn't be banned, they should be educated though, it drives the wrong behaviour, at least it doesn't drive a behaviour of self correction, it drives the behaviour of oppression.
Ike Turner
Veteran
From a quick glance at both forums its relatively obvious that the "worst" of NeoGAF is now at ResetERA...sure GAF is now lot more quite but the discussions are far more civil..ResetERA is simply GAF 2.0 so Much stupidity is boggles the mind...
Ironically the same sheep-think that advocates for free speech and open mindedness are probably the same types that banned him because they don't agree with him/her.
To be clear, I am for both, it's just the hypocrisy that they will say they are for those and then turn around and ban someone for his opinion. I think what gets him in trouble is the last few sentences of his thinking, but let the forum self-police/educate and provide inputs that may add thoughts he/she hadn't considered.
To be clear, I am for both, it's just the hypocrisy that they will say they are for those and then turn around and ban someone for his opinion. I think what gets him in trouble is the last few sentences of his thinking, but let the forum self-police/educate and provide inputs that may add thoughts he/she hadn't considered.
Last edited:
Well there is education in this case as the ban only lasts 24 hours with 'victim blaming' as justification.
Oh I guess. But I mean, it's better to actually talk about it? I mean they may not understand what victim blaming is. I dunno. I get everyone should be able to google things, but not everyone can learn that way either.
And if you read the next posts, the reasons of his ban are well explained by others posters.
But by banning him you don't get to let him participate in the discussion and express his thinking. He may well be wrong (or right) but getting participation is a much better way at educating than banning outright.
If he had continued to be obtuse or unreasonable then a ban could be justified. The ban right away just seems to me to put out a bad vibe and reinforces what some of the stuff people didn't like about GAF and the banning practices there now being carried over into the new forum.
It's nice to want things.
The tone of the post certainly did not seem conducive to actual discussion so much as it was just inserting his/her/etc. concluded mind disguised as a question. Of course, it could just be poor etiquette & manners.
The ban might have been too quick to formulate a rebuttal to the rebuttal though to see if that's how it'd play out or not.
Last edited:
This particular discussion is a rather meta conundrum, at least to me.
When most forums discourage litigating thread moderation outside of designated spaces, discussing this is effectively litigating some other forum's in-thread moderation.
I'm not aware of a reference or general theory of moderation, where theory and practice have an analytical framework we can use to productively break things down, without running the risk of the contentiousness of said moderation infecting the thread discussing it (presumably why it's already considered a bad idea discussing moderation in-situ) or it serving as a stalking-horse for the argument the moderation interrupted.
On the other hand, it's their house, and trying to discuss any example is picking apart someone else's business.
Discussing another forum beyond specific data points found there has been an area I've been reluctant to delve into because it drags in complication or sets up a situation where judgement can be passed with no opportunity for rebuttal (or silly argument by proxy in different posts in different sites).
GAF's notoriety and focus on an owner seems to at least meet a level of novelty, but is there a point where the business of the new forum is just that, some other forum's trivial business?
I think the theoretical aspects might be interesting, at least from a more clinically detached perspective--but risky in the sense of clinical analysis in a biohazard lab.
When most forums discourage litigating thread moderation outside of designated spaces, discussing this is effectively litigating some other forum's in-thread moderation.
I'm not aware of a reference or general theory of moderation, where theory and practice have an analytical framework we can use to productively break things down, without running the risk of the contentiousness of said moderation infecting the thread discussing it (presumably why it's already considered a bad idea discussing moderation in-situ) or it serving as a stalking-horse for the argument the moderation interrupted.
On the other hand, it's their house, and trying to discuss any example is picking apart someone else's business.
Discussing another forum beyond specific data points found there has been an area I've been reluctant to delve into because it drags in complication or sets up a situation where judgement can be passed with no opportunity for rebuttal (or silly argument by proxy in different posts in different sites).
GAF's notoriety and focus on an owner seems to at least meet a level of novelty, but is there a point where the business of the new forum is just that, some other forum's trivial business?
I think the theoretical aspects might be interesting, at least from a more clinically detached perspective--but risky in the sense of clinical analysis in a biohazard lab.
That's a matter of debate. Moderation isn't about trying to educate people how to be 'better' people, but facilitating discussion. This guy should be allowed to present his position (he may be right). Others should be allowed to present their positions. They should discussed until someone changes their mind, or they get bored, or never stop and keep the thread going forever, at which point the mods may have reason to close it.
That's the hardest part people have AFAICS, staying completely independent in discussions to actually see different sides, rather than just argue against them. As a mod you need to learn to just ignore personal opinion and stick to the mandate of facilitator. That's easier for those who don't engage in discussions. Here, I think we're pretty good at putting on and taking off our mod-hats and by-and-large I don't think moderation has ever been personally influenced; certainly not as a moderation trend. It's also good that moderation is flagged in front of all mods and we have the option to debate correct course of action.
TL;DR - the mods at B3D are teh awsom
TL;DR - the mods at B3D are teh awsom
Objection! Biased statement.
And I'll ban anyone who doesn't agree!