Thanks a lot people

[digitalwanderer]

Him refusing to come here and back up his words with reasoned argument means exactly zero.

Right.

The fact of the matter is, B3D members and staff are BANNED at [H], and at the same time Kyle is NOT banned here.

That should be a major clue for some people as to where the "problem" lies.

That's what I don't get. Kyle has a tendancy to answer direct questions with phrases like; "Well I've covered that already", "I've addressed that issue extensively", or "We've pretty much beat that issue to death and I'm tired of talking about it" a whole lot more than he does actually answering the questions.

I'd just like it if for once he would DIRECTLY address the issues asked of him, it might tend to keep the flamers down a bit.

 

[Pete]

I'm not sure Kyle is staying away because of the flaming. Heck, when Dave tries to take the discussion over to his (considerably more moderated) forums, Kyle just bans Dave, so it's not an issue of politeness. The problem is that the reasons Kyle publicly gives for his stands on 3DMark and nVidia's cheating don't add up, particularly given his otherwise outspoken nature and past exposes, so we're forced to deduce that he's not being fully honest with his readers. Obviously, that sort of thing doesn't sit well with some of the more involved members here, me included.

Blackwind, please stop with the weak replies (which are all basically more eloquent versions of "No yuo!"). You show Dave the flames--he asked first. If you meant that people here don't know what a flame is, and cross the line into flaming out of ignorance, you'd be mistaken. Although we have our fair share of hotheads here, most of their more, shall we say, impassioned missives to Kyle have been a result of yet another one of his inexplicable or hypocritical posts (be they in editorial, news post, or forum post form). The most egregious example of Kyle's questionable behavior is his public statement that ExtremeTech exposed nVidia's cheating ("It's not cheating if you can't see it" ) b/c they were upset that they didn't get in on the Doom 3 benchmarks--and in that same editorial, he goes on to say that it's wrong to ascribe motives. Would it be wrong of me to think that Kyle's abandoning 3DMark is a result of jealousy of B3D and ET for being included as FutureMark Beta members, while he was not? :?

 

[Forbidden Donut]

Question: would you do the things that inspired that treatment?
I have yet to see a concern with Kyle's comments and actions mentioned at the same time that concern is expressed about his treatment by others in reaction to the same. Accusing a web site of writing an article as retaliation for not receiving a Doom 3 preview seems atleast as serious and insulting as any accusation I've seen directed at Kyle, and I've atleast seen some support for the accusations levelled at Kyle.

I would like to think that in Kyle's position I would act differently. I understand where the opinions of Kyle come from. I share most of them, and there is certainly plenty of support for "accusations levelled at Kyle."

You need to clarify the word "treatment". If you mean just the pure name calling and taunting that some do, without any regard to discussing facts, say so. However, the word "treatment" implies inclusion of all the commentary, regardless of its basis, including criticism which happens to be extensively correlated to specific actions and statements that Kyle has in fact performed. Complaining about that seems rather nonsensical, unless you propose that these forums distance themselves from fact, reasoning, and discussion based on establishing such?

My apologies for being unclear. By treatment I am referring primarily to the taunting, name calling, and referring to the site as [T]. I understand constructive criticism and actually enjoy receiving it. Plenty of people, as has been my personal experience, do not. For that reason, I have a higher level of respect for people willing to take and learn from constructive criticism, a la brent.

Are my standards too high? Why? I don't define my standards by the behavior of personnel at [H], and other people have and continue to meet them...why should I lower them for these specific cases? The "hit count" hieararchy of web sites?

I don't think there's such a thing as setting standards too high, especially for oneself. As I said in another thread, I've exchanged a couple of emails with Kyle when I was asking for clarification of [H]'s stance on something. I was perfectly polite in my email, and he paid me the same courtesy in return. Did I agree with what he said? Nope. However, I did gain a slightly better understanding of the way [H] operates internally, which is useful information regardless.

"Stubborn" is not a virtue by itself. You can be "stubbornly wrong" just as well as you can be "stubbornly dedicated to being objective" or "stubbornly dedicated to serious consideration of all criticism". Kyle seems to think one version of being "stubborn" is just as good as any other...since he isn't here to defend that stance, could you explain why you share that view, since you seem to?

I was not using stubborn as a virtue as much as a character trait. Some people are simply stubborn. They're stubborn when they're wrong, they're stubborn when they're right, and they're stubborn when they're running around in the gray area. I believe Kyle to be one of these people. My only point of saying that he is stubborn was to say "Look, you're not going to change the way he does things, and I don't think that resorting to flaming is the way to go."

So, I should lower my standards because I "won't change Kyle"? That sounds like something he's said, strangely enough. Perhaps when people responded negatively to that, it was some indication that people didn't agree with this idea, and has some relevance to why people might not share your outlook (even without being part of some sort of "anti-[H]" club by nature).

I'm not able to equivocate keeping high standards and attacking someone verbally.Keep in mind here, I'm not referring to you, but to the people do verbally attack him. Disagreeing is disagreeing. Strongly disagreeing is strongly disagreeing. Not visiting a website anymore is a non-offensive sign of protest. But name-calling doesn't fall under these categories, imo.

How about other people not changing? Let's say your saying what you did in response to people's comments about Kyle won't "change that" either. How is it everyone with a differing outlook on the concept has to change to suite Kyle and, apparently, yourself? Why can't you and Kyle change instead?
Forgive me if you don't really condone this outlook on "stubborn", but I think your words are a pretty direct argument along the lines I am addressing. If you don't think they are, please clarify.

I understand the corner I've managed to back myself into here...perhaps a bit of a double standard. I suppose I've just always thought there are very few reasons to treat people poorly. Yes, I understand that Kyle has a reputation to treat people poorly, but why pull yourself (again, using "you" in the general sense) to that level?

What animosity between the "two sites"? This isn't a turf war between gangs!

[H] is run by personnel.
I, personally, have a problem with the actions of specific members of that personnel. So do many other individuals.
Those other individuals posting at Beyond 3D probably happen to like Beyond3D.

This is a good point. I, along with other people, tend to group websites like [H] and B3D with their patronage. To the actual persononnel here at B3D's credit, they stay away from personal attacks and focus more on the issues at hand. I mistakenly didn't make this distinction. However, I do feel that the owners of the board are responsible for what happens on the board. It's like if a parent allows his/her child to have a raging party, he/she is liable for what happens to the attendees.

This situation is a result of the thoughts of the individuals, and their evaluation of the actions of the personnel behind the sites. This doesn't make their reactions a display of animosity between two sites, and trying to say it does just seems to sidestep that many individuals independently came to their own evaluations based on what the sites actually did, and try to instead substitute the idea that the site to favor was picked, and that the criticism of one and not the other is the result of that alone instead of something objective.

The only animosity "between sites" that I have seen is in the rather rude commentary Kyle has directed at the personnel who run this site, and that has occurred without any relation to factuality or objectivity. I have not seen that in the other direction. If you seek to address such animosity, I recommend you take it up with him. I also recommend that you try to make sure you do not label something rude based on the chosen response of the person at whom it is directed, but by its content.

Agreed. Kyle made the same mistake I did, and grouped a website with its forum members. I think Kyle's rude post would likely have been tempered if he had made that distinction before writing it.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

I think the "treatment" I see as being the equivalent of running people out of town includes:
-never letting something die(dredging up old arguments over and over)
-ganging up on people (with a lot of 'me too' + a page of condemnation)
-interlacing facts and reasoning with intensely charged words
-consistantly poor manners and hostile speaking tone
-ascribing motivations to statements or actions, usually with character assasination in mind
-never apparently looking to engage in conversation, but in beration

Having the virtue of being correct does not prevent or excuse people from being assholes. It just makes them righteous assholes, and they're usually less fun that assholes who don't know what they're talking about.

But that's the internet for you. I suppose Kyle's a big boy and is familiar with how things work, but it doesn't help the image put forth by Beyond3d.

Stick this quote into my above post

 

[digitalwanderer]

By treatment I am referring primarily to the taunting, name calling, and referring to the site as [T]. I understand constructive criticism and actually enjoy receiving it. Plenty of people, as has been my personal experience, do not. For that reason, I have a higher level of respect for people willing to take and learn from constructive criticism, a la brent.

Can I take just a second to address this in as non-flaming a way as I can, since I believe I'm one of those people you're referring to.

I believe the constructive criticism path has been totally exhausted in dealing with [H] & Kyle, I truly do. I think it has been tried and just met the stonewall of Kyle's "I've answered that to everyone's satisfaction already" type of replies.

THAT'S when I started referring to them as [T], right after their almost-trilinier justificationomercial.

I do still respect Brent somewhat as he still seems to be a seeker & sharer of knowledge, but his stance in that justificationomercial and his defense of Kyle's lack-o-explanation explanations just boggles my mind and offends me as an insult to my intelligence.

That's why I do it. If I have to give them the attention by mentioning them I also at least wish to express my dislike for their current positions and attitudes, and if name-calling allows me to do that I shall. (Although not here so much 'cause they tend not to like it and believe it or not I DO try and respect the rules and wishes of the boards I post at, if I disagree with them I just stop posting there. )

 

[WaltC]

Oh, my...another teary-eyed, violin-playing sentimental overture that "poor, gentle, softspoken Kyle, who'd never insult a fly" has been chased off by mean, hard-hearted people who have been so completely unreasonable as to insist that Kyle explain the public positions he's taken. What a crime...

Fact: KB has been invited on numerous occasions to take part in discussions here at B3d centering around his public positions as stated in his editorials and forums. He has been invited to do so many times by both the staff and the readership in the B3d forums. His account at B3d remains open to this day, should he wish to avail himself of it.

Fact: B3d staff was not accorded the same treatment within the [H] forums. They were *publicly* banned from the [H] forums. They were directly and personally insulted by Kyle, publicly, simply for the "crime" of having presented proof to back up the information they wished to share within the [H] forums as to the issues they attempted to discuss. Words directly used by Kyle such as "What a wasted talent--you could've been somebody," and "B3d police" and "B3d agenda" come to mind as pretty near direct quotes. KB, in typical form, never attempted to prove any of his insults--apparently he thinks they should simply stand by fiat.

Fact: No one in any way, shape, or form has chased KB from the B3d forums. However, the B3d staff was quite literally chased from the [H] forums for having done nothing more than present information relevant to the topics being discussed in the affected threads.

IMO, Kyle seems to perfectly illustrate the old axiom about the state of personalities who "know how to dish it out" but just can't take it. If he can't stand the "heat" he shouldn't be in the "kitchen." There are no primma donnas in this business.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ah, so he deserved it.

As my dear departed mother always said: If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

 

[digitalwanderer]

If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

Isn't silence in the face of wrong-doing/injustice silent support of said wrong-doing/injustice?

That's something my Mom taught to me at least.

 

[Dean]

Kyle has always enjoyed being outspoken and being the center of attention. The stance he is currently taken hasn't changed anything but alot of people are now looking for the reasoning behind his stance, which Kyle refuses to address.

If you take the path of being outspoken, you have to be prepared to back up your words. He has not been banned from here and I bet Wavey and Rev would welcome him to come in here and offer his side of the story. It will not happen though because Kyle cannot force the "having the last word" here.

The so called "flaming" is just an excuse to avoid the issue. He can avoid it on his own site by closing threads and banning individuals. He does not have the power to do that here.

 

[RussSchultz]

If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

Isn't silence in the face of wrong-doing/injustice silent support of said wrong-doing/injustice?

That's something my Mom taught to me at least.

Injustice. Wow. I had no idea that justice was at stake.

But anyways, you don't have to be a dick when you speak out against "injustice". It belittles the fight, and does nothing but increase the divide.

(note: you in the collective sense, not specifically you. I haven't bothered to read the umpteeth threat lambasting Kyle once again so I have no idea if you've been a dick or not. )

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Ah, so he deserved it.

Actually, yes. He got treated a lot better than he treated others.

As my dear departed mother always said: If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

And my mother used to say "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all live our lives based on the kind of empty platitudes you find on the inside of cheap greeting cards?"

 

[kkevin666]

Its been proved to the man his favourite video card company is cheating.

The man says hes known about it for months now.

He posts insults to direct polite questions and then block ip bans/refuses registration.

He agrees with a company that has NO REGARD WHATSOEVER of industry standard coding paths/techniques and is adamant on splitting the industry due to poorly performing hardware.

Companys should be welcoming standards with open arms nvidia HAVE NEVER shown how programming for a propriatary path actually creates less work and makes the end product look better.

Kyle has bought this on HIMSELF

Throughout history egomaniacs when confronted with things not going their way always offer the same solution-

"IM NOT LISTENING NAH NAH NAH" with their fingers stuck in their ears

Losing his input on this board makes it a better place not worse

 

[digitalwanderer]

If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

Isn't silence in the face of wrong-doing/injustice silent support of said wrong-doing/injustice?

That's something my Mom taught to me at least.

Injustice. Wow. I had no idea that justice was at stake.

But anyways, you don't have to be a dick when you speak out against "injustice". It belittles the fight, and does nothing but increase the divide.

Uhm, the "loyal opposition" in this case has sort of opened the divide about as far as the divide can be opened right now....I'm just expressing my dissent in a like manner.

No, I ain't got no problem stooping to their level. I never claimed to be a class-act or a professional, I'm an enthusiast...I think it's natural to have an emotional reaction.

 

[WaltC]

Ah, so he deserved it.

As my dear departed mother always said: If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

Would have been a nice lesson for KB, certainly. And I wouldn't say he "deserves" it, actually---he worked very hard for it and so I'd say he earned it...

Aside from that, can you recall similar invective coming from the B3d staff toward the [H] staff? I can't, and so it seems the B3d staff followed your advice and said pretty much nothing, except for trying to impart the information they had gathered.

As far as what the B3d forum membership says, well, Kyle gets a lot worse than that on the [H] forums, assuredly. Of course within that context KB can edit out what he finds personally offensive, both in terms of text and the forum members themselves. Perhaps if the B3d staff would suborn itself to Kyle's dictates about which threads to lock or delete or which posts to censor and edit, Kyle might actually feel comfortable enough to posit his opinions here.... But you and I both know that's not going to happen, and unfortunately Kyle doesn't feel comfortable otherwise, it would seem.

What I find truly puzzling about your opinion on this Russ is that you seem extremely reluctant to apply the same yardstick to KB that you wish to apply to everyone else...I mean, I don't see you suggesting what Kyle ought to do or say, but you seem eager to suggest courses of action for everyone else with respect to the issues. Right? I'd like to think I was wrong in that assumption.

 

[Bolloxoid]

But anyways, you don't have to be a dick when you speak out against "injustice". It belittles the fight, and does nothing but increase the divide.

Having the virtue of being correct does not prevent or excuse people from being assholes.

Whoah. If you continue at this rate, your posts calling people dicks and assholes far outnumber the posts where people have used similar language regarding Kyle.

 

[demalion]

I understand the commentary about rudeness, with specifics listed. I simply think that criticism should be directed at the specific occurrence, not that generalizations should be made. Russ' list falls short of doing that in several ways, and falls into the pattern of "double standard" in others.

For example,how "old" is the UT 2k3 AF article? The issue of Kyle keeps getting brought up because of new behaviors on his part, or new defenses that seem to be weakly constructed, while poorly aimed and specified. As one example, witness this thread.

As for "ganging up", my first reply is that it seems silly to complain that many people disagree and list their reasons versus others because those "others" are only a few people who aren't making a coherent case in reply.
However, maybe you just meant the "hyena-like" name calling, or "kicking him once he has been shown to be down" posts, even though your description didn't seem to make it clear to me. In that case, from the point of view of standards in these particular forums, I have to agree, but I still feel compelled to point out that an unwillingness to admit error or modify behavior might be more than loosely associated with that "treatment". Personally, I thought that particular facet had run its course for this issue, but these "defenses" that seem to make no clear distinction or rational sense in those they blame for criticizing Kyle just seems to me to encourage it all over again by making the issue one of "don't criticize Kyle", which doesn't make sense and prompts people to reply all over again, instead of clearly focusing on the specific name calling as something distinct that can be individually addressed or corrected.

For the "interlacing of facts and reasoning with intensely charged words", I think you have to recognize that people might wish to express strong opinions even when you do not, and that with facts and reasoning present you might not have valid justification to condemn them for it. I also direct you to contrast the presence of strong opinions without facts and reasoning as evidenced by Kyle, and consider how that makes your criticism look one sided. I recommend pointing out how the strong emotion might be unproductive, in the specific cases where it is, instead of applying condemnation in a general fashion.

Poor manners I agree with, but "hostile speaking tone" is seems like a rehash of the above. You know, it is possible for people to act in ways that engender hostility...if hostility is frequent, it might not be productive to blame the people reacting instead of the people acting in ways that cause the response. Also, again it appears as a double standard because Kyle is acting in exactly this fashion as well.

Ascribing motivations to statements, etc. Again, the problem with this being presented in this way is how clearly it applies to Kyle's actions specifically, and how generally the description is being applied to condemn people criticizing him the same way, except with listed reasons. This goes with the facts and reasoning above, and that the comments on the motivationsof Kyle are based on a large body of actions and statements, and are not just casually made accusations. However, except for the one-sided nature of application to "Kyle" and "those criticizing Kyle" (except Kyle doesn't provide facts and reasoning), I do still tend to agree from the perspective of forum standards, though it seems to me that the validity of this is obscured by the broad strokes you are taking with the list overall.

Never looking to engage in conversation, but in beration...hmm...now, this puzzles me significantly, as I'm not sure who here has made a point of saying over and over how they don't want to see Kyle's response to what has been said. In fact, with regards to the idea of "one sided criticism", I had to re-read your list to make sure that you weren't just simply listing things Kyle did and I'd misunderstood the nature of your post, because this seems to so exclusively (to my recollection) to apply as a criticism of Kyle's conduct alone. Did I miss something?

So, I agree a bit on your comments on hostility and ascribing motivations, and maybe on some of the pointlessness of some "namecalling" that I mentioned before, in terms of the standards of these forums. However, I think you'd need to target the description more specifically to make these complaints useful. Also, the combination of Kyle's behavior failing your list, as well as commentary that does not fail your list being treated with hostility by him, tends to make proposing your list of things as "being the equivalent of running people out of town" seems nonsensical.

That said, proposing your list as a specific set of behavior for a thread under which a dialog could be opened, instead of proposing it as some sort of universal standard that should be applied to the forums, makes sense to me. Reshaping the forums to please one person so selectively seems disasterous to me...shaping one new thread for such does not seem unreasonable. My personal opinion is that this has already failed at [H] with the bannings that resulted from some of the statements made, but if a new effort could be made, why not?

 

[John Reynolds]

Guys, Kyle is free to post here whenever he wants. If he chooses not to, that's his decision. Some of you, though, need to calm down a bit, IMO. As Russ said, there's a bit too many "me too/righteous indignation" posts that're generating a bad S/N ratio in the forums.

Edit: And the above is offered neither as an excuse for Kyle's behavior/attitude toward Dave & Rev (the B3D Law & Order detectives), nor as justification for his approach to the benchmarking debacle this entire summer has been.

 

[RussSchultz]

I'd like to think I was wrong in that assumption.

Well, you'd be glad to know that your assumptions about me are once again wrong.

Or, at least I think you'd be glad. Or maybe not, since it doesn't fit with your agenda of demonizing anybody who disagrees with you.

 

[John Reynolds]

OK, that's enough with this thread.

 

[Reverend]

Kyle in his own forum, directed at me,[/url] ]
The page of my post at HardOCP to which Kyle replied :

Congrats on your first post with the mighty unwashed. It only took you over five years....funny that it should be about getting credit.

You can have all the credit. I will state here right here right now that B3DPolice are fully responsible for getting this issue fixed. I am glad to see that Dave solved this problem months ago......You can have 100% credit for it all, as I really don't care.

It is sad that you have let all your influence mean nothing in an industry that you could have truly helped shape. Anthony, you have truly wasted what could have been greatness in the industry on the likes of VE and B3. I can fully say you are one of the wasted talents in our industry that was bound for greatness and lost it to the disappointment of many.

Greatness...thrown away. It makes me sad to see such talent wasted on B3DPolice postings.

Is that a flame? Or a polite attack? Or a veiled compliment+attack? Are they all the same thing regardless of what it's called "flame", "attack" etc.)?

There are different ways to interpret a "flame". Most of the time, it depends on its effect on the target of the "flame". I did not take what Kyle said about me as a "flame" but I did take it as simply "inappropriate", especially given the fact that he is the owner of HardOCP, someone that everyone hopes would would react in a professional manner (I'll leave "maturity" out of it). I was rather surprised to receive an email from a ATI engineer who participates here who said that he felt Kyle's above response was "stooping too low" (just like when a different ATI engineer PM'ed me to ignore/please-excuse Doomtrooper in his last post on this page... although I'll admit that some of my responses on this page directed at DT can be viewed as a "flame/attack/whatever" at him). However, what Kyle said is not a big deal to me, even if most of you may look at it the same way as the ATI engineer who emailed me.

Why?

Because I know Kyle. And when you know someone, it is perhaps better to just keep quiet than to "retaliate"... otherwise it just becomes a waste of time.

I am not sad that Kyle has chosen to stay away from participating here. This applies to everyone else that does the same. It is ultimately up to them to decide if they should "stand their ground in the face of continued attacks".

The most important thing is that the personnel/staff of website A should convince the personnels/staff of website B that he has done no wrong, either through his articles or posting history or private correspondences. Until he is able to do that, the personnels of website B will not feel inclined to help him. And that is solution to stopping flamings.

[edit]John, please excuse me for re-opening the thread... I think if we can define what constitutes a "flame", it may help us out. Feel free to lock this (again) if/when this thread doesn't help our forums