Julius's forum posts

#1 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

@patrickklepek: @jeff: I agree that this seems to be a culture split, but it seems like it might be a culture split right down the middle of Giant Bomb, with Patrick (lots of commentary) and Dan (virtually no social commentary) representing the extremes. Is this something that is going to require Giant Bomb to take a side in terms of which type of commentary it provides? I find it more and more difficult to believe that both audiences can be served in the same venue.

#2 Posted by Julius (105 posts) -

@turambar said:
@julius said:

@turambar said:

@julius said:

@turambar: The comparison to a console discussion is pretty irrelevant. If two people get mad about consoles, no matter how horrible they are, no one outside of that thread cares. If it's about social issues, people get mad, then people on Twitter get mad, people on Reddit get mad, people get harassed, people get real-life threats against their person, etcetera. These are things that the world cares about, not just Giant Bomb's community, and for better or worse (likely worse), there are massive consequences to the image of a site who allows these conversations to happen out in its most public pages. "Censorship" is not necessarily the way to go, but relocation, recontextualization, setting a tone with the content, and other methods are going to help Giant Bomb not have to waste Jeff's time releasing articles telling everyone to stop being jerks.

If you're saying people do not go to absurd lengths and espouse emotions to absurd degrees in defending their favored piece of electronics, then you're incorrect, plainly stated.

When you speak of consequences, I do not particularly agree, though to play along for a moment, would there also not be massive consequences to the image of a site that decides to sequester these conversations with the intention of hiding them from view?

Why do you believe controlling language is a preferred solution to being jerks than people truly being more amiable to each other?

Your first sentence is true but it also doesn't address what I said. People go to absurd lengths for their console of choice, but no one outside of the community and others like it cares.

How can you not agree about the consequences to begin with? Jeff has never had to write an article like that in the entirety of the site's existence. And no, I don't think large amounts of people freak out about websites that just... don't have super-open comment systems, or have stricter rules. And with Samantha Allen not able to go on for as long as she did in the comments, she would just be someone on Twitter yelling, which is not exactly noteworthy.

The core users involved in these fights are not interested in being amiable to each other. See the phrases Allen and her detractors traded back and forth on her Twitter or on the site. These are not solvable discussions.

Social issues operate under the same rule. It simply has a much more numerous community. It is not something uniquely virulent unto itself. I am not certain what your criticism there is.

I don't believe there are massive consequences to the image of a site that allows for these conversations to happen. I do not believe Giantbomb's image would have been greatly harmed even if Jeff did not publish an article denouncing it. And I certainly do not believe any closed comment system on Giantbomb would have prevented the harsh retaliation Samantha Allen received on twitter. I do believe however, that sequestering such topics to places where few eyes will see it is to tacitly state that they are not welcomed, something all staff have stated is not something they believe in.

They are also not discussions being had on Giantbomb, as this forum has, in fact, a reputation of not allowing discussions with the sole intention of debasing and insulting another person.

If you can't see the difference in tone and severity in a conversation about consoles vs. a conversation about sexism, I don't know what to say. They don't operate on the same rules at all.

#3 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

@turambar said:

@julius said:

@turambar: The comparison to a console discussion is pretty irrelevant. If two people get mad about consoles, no matter how horrible they are, no one outside of that thread cares. If it's about social issues, people get mad, then people on Twitter get mad, people on Reddit get mad, people get harassed, people get real-life threats against their person, etcetera. These are things that the world cares about, not just Giant Bomb's community, and for better or worse (likely worse), there are massive consequences to the image of a site who allows these conversations to happen out in its most public pages. "Censorship" is not necessarily the way to go, but relocation, recontextualization, setting a tone with the content, and other methods are going to help Giant Bomb not have to waste Jeff's time releasing articles telling everyone to stop being jerks.

If you're saying people do not go to absurd lengths and espouse emotions to absurd degrees in defending their favored piece of electronics, then you're incorrect, plainly stated.

When you speak of consequences, I do not particularly agree, though to play along for a moment, would there also not be massive consequences to the image of a site that decides to sequester these conversations with the intention of hiding them from view?

Why do you believe controlling language is a preferred solution to being jerks than people truly being more amiable to each other?

Your first sentence is true but it also doesn't address what I said. People go to absurd lengths for their console of choice, but no one outside of the community and others like it cares.

How can you not agree about the consequences to begin with? Jeff has never had to write an article like that in the entirety of the site's existence. And no, I don't think large amounts of people freak out about websites that just... don't have super-open comment systems, or have stricter rules. And with Samantha Allen not able to go on for as long as she did in the comments, she would just be someone on Twitter yelling, which is not exactly noteworthy.

The core users involved in these fights are not interested in being amiable to each other. See the phrases Allen and her detractors traded back and forth on her Twitter or on the site. These are not solvable discussions.

@djm389: The main thrust of the argument from myself and others like me is that we DON'T want to have this conversation. Why do you think we do?

#4 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

@turambar: The comparison to a console discussion is pretty irrelevant. If two people get mad about consoles, no matter how horrible they are, no one outside of that thread cares. If it's about social issues, people get mad, then people on Twitter get mad, people on Reddit get mad, people get harassed, people get real-life threats against their person, etcetera. These are things that the world cares about, not just Giant Bomb's community, and for better or worse (likely worse), there are massive consequences to the image of a site who allows these conversations to happen out in its most public pages. "Censorship" is not necessarily the way to go, but relocation, recontextualization, setting a tone with the content, and other methods are going to help Giant Bomb not have to waste Jeff's time releasing articles telling everyone to stop being jerks.

#5 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

@turambar said:

@julius said:

I would say the community is a larger part than any of the things you mentioned. Also I consume all content and I'm a huge fan of the site, so it bums me out that I could possibly need to ignore portions of the site.

EDIT: I missed your point. I see what you mean, but those aren't in my face like the Bombcast page's discussion or the comments of major site news.

Half the purpose of discussions of social issues is to get people that do not pay attention, or do not want to pay attention, to do so. That is regardless of platform, medium, or locale. If someone feels something is important, truly important, why would that person ever not try to get others engaged in the conversation? To start the conversation where there was none before?

I agree that from the conversation-starter's perspective it's a good idea. From the perspective of the site, this leads to (as we have seen) bad things that don't even involve a proper, organized conversation and eventually restrict all conversation. Therefore, it is in the site's interest. The conversation-starter's interests are not the matter at hand.

#6 Posted by Julius (105 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@julius said:

@turambar said:

@julius said:

@brendan said:

For all the talk of the website swinging one way or another, let me add in a nugget:

Imagine if you never looked a comment in the history of this website; would you have any idea what is being talked about in this thread? I'm cutting off my bias here and thinking back on all the actual GB content, and realizing that other than Jeff's 1 post, almost literally 100% of what's being complained about in this thread is from the community, and not what the staff has produced. You could argue that Patrick skews more toward serious discussion than silliness but he's one person's worth of content that is mostly written. I'm not even taking the OP's "side" on this one, just saying that the actual website created by the guys making content are Quick Looks and zany live shows.

Right, but people shouldn't have to avoid the community content, given that it's a massive portion of the site. I'm a little confused by your post though, so maybe you're not saying the opposite of that.

But I am. Any content regarding first person shooters created by the community is a piece of content that I avoid because I have no attraction to that genre. Others probably feel the same about JRPGs, anime, pokemon, Pathfinder, Madden, etc. People avoid content all the time on a daily basis.

I would say the community is a larger part than any of the things you mentioned. Also I consume all content and I'm a huge fan of the site, so it bums me out that I could possibly need to ignore portions of the site.

It's not a "need" to ignore portions of the site. It's just a matter of interest. If something doesn't interest you, there is no requirement that you engage with it. Being a fan of the site doesn't obligate anyone to consume every last piece of editorial or forum content, nor should anyone feel that sort of pressure.

I've been visiting Giant Bomb since the beginning, and I used to be much more active in consuming the editorial content the staff produced, whether it be Bombcasts, Quick Looks, reviews, video review (when they were still doing them), live shows, and everything else. But over time, I've moved away from the content that doesn't interest me. I don't need to engage with every last bit of content the site has to offer in order to get what I want out of it. I'm content, most of the time, with some of the editorial content, plus time spent with the wiki and forums. If you really enjoy absolutely everything that the staff produces and want to consume it all, I'm not going to stop you (not that I'm in any position to do so). But the fact of the matter is that not everyone is gripped by everything that the site has to offer, and that's perfectly normal.

Again, I misread what @turambar had said, and have since edited my post.

#7 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

@turambar said:
@julius said:

I would say the community is a larger part than any of the things you mentioned. Also I consume all content and I'm a huge fan of the site, so it bums me out that I could possibly need to ignore portions of the site.

You're right, the community is bigger than any one topic. So why pick social issues as the one topic to remove, when everyone lets something pass them by, knowing contently that something else they are more interested in will come along? Why does your desire to not have to avoid something trump someone else's desire to engage with threads discussion social issues, and see those as community content they wish to engage with?

Sorry, I misread your first post. Please see my edit.

@pyromagnestir: okay, well that's fortunate for you in this case, but I personally enjoy reading the audience reaction to content.

#9 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -

I'd personally rather they used the Ryan Davis tactic of "Ahahahaha why are you talking about this stuff on this video game podcast" sometimes, but I can see why you would like to hear their outside-of-strictly-video-games opinions.

@turambar said:

@julius said:

@brendan said:

For all the talk of the website swinging one way or another, let me add in a nugget:

Imagine if you never looked a comment in the history of this website; would you have any idea what is being talked about in this thread? I'm cutting off my bias here and thinking back on all the actual GB content, and realizing that other than Jeff's 1 post, almost literally 100% of what's being complained about in this thread is from the community, and not what the staff has produced. You could argue that Patrick skews more toward serious discussion than silliness but he's one person's worth of content that is mostly written. I'm not even taking the OP's "side" on this one, just saying that the actual website created by the guys making content are Quick Looks and zany live shows.

Right, but people shouldn't have to avoid the community content, given that it's a massive portion of the site. I'm a little confused by your post though, so maybe you're not saying the opposite of that.

But I am. Any content regarding first person shooters created by the community is a piece of content that I avoid because I have no attraction to that genre. Others probably feel the same about JRPGs, anime, pokemon, Pathfinder, Madden, etc. People avoid content all the time on a daily basis.

I would say the community is a larger part than any of the things you mentioned. Also I consume all content and I'm a huge fan of the site, so it bums me out that I could possibly need to ignore portions of the site.

EDIT: I missed your point. I see what you mean, but those aren't in my face like the Bombcast page's discussion or the comments of major site news.

#10 Edited by Julius (105 posts) -
@darkstalker said:

@julius said:

@jeff said:

@darkstalker said:

I agree that @patrickklepek gets way to much shit in these threads because of the false belief only he is fighting for equality or is against some of the gross stuff said in these threads.

To be frank, our lack of reaction to people giving Patrick shit is probably a big cause of our current situation. Since the last thing I wanted was for us to look like any of us couldn't handle criticism or that we were being overly defensive about content (and a person) who we all believe in, we let a lot of ugly shit stay in our comments. That probably signified to people that it was OK to behave that way across the board, when we probably should have just banned those people and moved on. It's not about "censorship" or "silencing dissent." It's about having a limited amount of time and energy to deal with unpleasant people and just wiping them out, rather than trying to... I don't know, rehabilitate them or whatever.

All of us on these boards should be able to handle (or skip) any topic of discussion without having some kind of massive meltdown and turning threads into wastelands of arguments and madness. At some point, if someone shows that they're unable to remain civil or just move on when it's clear that everyone's point has been made and no one is changing their minds, it's kinda up to the moderation team to scoot that person in the right direction. Otherwise we end up with those lame endless threads where people just state the same four opinions again and again with increasing frequency and intensity. That's not a discussion, regardless of whether it's about some kind of modern social issue or which console has the bestest resolution.

Message boards are easy until they become popular. Then they're quite hard.

The problem with these social issues is that they are conversations where both sides are having meltdowns, and it's sometimes hard to say that these aren't issues worth getting really upset over. That's why I've been discussing methods of relocating, avoiding and re-contextualizing these conversations, because they are a special case of discussion that doesn't (initially, before the Twitter/reddit stuff) have a bad guy and won't go away if a few members are told off.

its easy to say they are issues to not get upset over when you arent the person being targeted. I am all for threads not getting hijacked but the whole "put them away in a corner somewhere "is not the answer. These discussions should (and need to) happen if we want to change the community for the better.

I am saying the exact opposite of what your first sentence makes it sound like I'm saying: I'm saying that someone would be hard-pressed to ignore that these issues matter a lot to people. However for that reason, threads are being locked and ALL discussion is being stopped, so we need a solution that identifies and deals with these special cases.