Though perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here and you just mean it's a sort of nasty business to have to open with, in which case I agree.
That is all I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.
I wasn't (and couldn't) be around when the split happened, and all in all I do think it's a bad thing and that there were better options. But the fact is there are two forums, and we may as well get along. That's always been my view, as per the above, and I would like to hope that there can be a reconciliation eventually. The .org/.net split was healed after all, and that worked out well for everyone (especially me, I got loads of powers).
Then we have essentially the same intentions, you and I. None of us really wanted to set up a new forum, but we felt forced to do so, given that we weren't willing to continue dealing with the old site's issues, and Daniel/JD weren't willing to let competent and willing people contribute.
Advertising one forum on another is usually not allowed on forums, especially smaller/independent ones. Like, that was a rule on every video game forum I was ever on, and I really don't think you should be surprised about that. Indeed, advertising other sites is against the rules anyway, and has been for years. And the mass avatar changing wasn't exactly classy, was it? Regarding the forum theme, I'm not aware of what exactly was said or how things were handled, but I think it's fair enough that if you guys want to do your own thing, then maybe it should be, you know, your own thing. And not just lift the look and content of the old site.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. It is not common practice at all, not in the way you guys have done it - you had no rules against advertising other fora, and other fora (smaller and bigger than this one) have previously been advertised. JD picked on us. The fact that you guys cannot follow your own rules (mostly because you can't make them) is part of the old site's problem.
We were never trying to "do our own thing" - we're providing a competent forum for the Flat Earth Society. The only reason we even have our own logo is because Daniel forced us to. It was never our intention to split the identity of FES, so if you have any complaints about that, take them to the orchestrator of it - Daniel.
Look, I know it might sound like a good thing not to 'police' behaviour outside the site, and that's fine if all you're running is a forum. But you're claiming to be the Flat Earth Society.
We are a Flat Earth Society. Daniel forced us to be one by demanding the identity split rather than simply acknowledging that his members chose to make a forum of their own. Again, wrong complaint to the wrong people. I disagree with Daniel's demands as much as you do, but complaining about them to us won't help anyone.
That's more than a forum, and like it or not, the actions people take on your behalf reflect on you, and are to a degree and in a sense your responsibility.
I dunno about "people", but I understand that you do. I'm sorry that you do, but we do not take responsibility for the actions of people we do not know.
Consider: if I started making racist diatribes on other forums in a personal capacity, Daniel would probably have to disassociate both himself and the society from me.
Yes, Daniel's lack of understanding on how to run a forum is part of the reason we set up a better forum. I'm sorry, but any invocation of WWDD? (What Would Daniel Do?) is not likely to make me see things your way.
If I were found to have, say, launched an attack on this site in an attempt to give ours an advantage, he would probably have to do the same. If more junior members of our forum were found to have been attacking your site, I would distance myself from those actions and probably issue bans. Those actions would reflect on the society, and even if I wished it wasn't our problem, it would be whether I liked it or not.
That makes more sense, but no one's forum was attacked. Wikipedia has its own moderation, administration, and a dispute resolution system. It is not my intention to interfere with that, and I do not feel qualified to even attempt intervening with it.
In Wikipedia's case, if you feel that an article is being continuously vandalised, you can request that it be partially locked (for example, to restrict it to autoconfirmed users only) - that way (assuming you're in the right - I currently disagree with that, but I also see no reason to get involved either way) you can end any issues for good without invoking unnecessary and unconstructive drama.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than what should be obvious: namely discourage bad behaviour that is obviously being carried out by members of your forum and society on behalf of your forum and society. If you're just running a forum and not a society, fine, you can be hands-off. But you are claiming to be 'a' (if not 'the') Flat Earth Society, and as long as that is the case you cannot simply wash your hands of what your members do in your name. Sorry, but that's just how things work, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The administration runs the forum. The Zetetic Council is meant to run the Society, but it's currently facing a bit of a stalemate. Our
sincere intention is to run a forum (you can have a look at our early posts here - it should be pretty clear). We're being
forced to run a Society of our own
by Daniel, who is unwilling to talk to us and ignores communication from us. Don't like it? Get Daniel to start giving a damn, or exercise your Vice-President powers and fix it yourself. We can't fix Daniel's political mess ourselves.
In terms of concrete actions, yeah, Wikipedia is obviously the correct route for getting it fixed, and I don't expect anyone here to get involved beyond the above. But I do think this needs to be flagged as bad behaviour that is discouraged. At the very least it is not conducive to good relations between the two sites, which is surely in everyone's interest.
There have been many things that were not conductive to good relations between the two sites, some of them I already highlighted for you. We're
not on good terms right now, as much as it displeases us. If you'd like to change that, trust me, everyone will be happy to see that. But for that to happen, a lot of words said are gonna have to be taken back, at least as far as I'm concerned (again, others in charge may disagree).
Personally, I do not like the idea of Wikipedia vandalism. As an FES administrator, I have no interest in voicing an official stance either way. This is simply not our remit - it's Wikipedia's.
I will state the obvious: nobody really trusts anybody (your stated trust in me aside - I do take that as genuine, and thanks) at this point, and as a result there's a lot of frustration on both sides. I'm confident that if you think about this impartially, you'll understand why this incident irritates Daniel, and I'm sure you feel you have legitimate grievances too.
Of course, he has all the right to be irritated (and, indeed, was
extremely open about stating it through his actions). It's just that after months of ignoring problems, he's not really in the position where his irritation is of much interest to me.
I'm not here to rail against this forum, and I meant what I said above.
Much appreciated. As I said, I do trust you personally, but the other forum has done a lot of things that were perceived as very aggressive. Coming and asking that we do your forum favours is just... not tactful, sorry.
I would like to hope that there can be a reconciliation eventually. The .org/.net split was healed after all, and that worked out well for everyone (especially me, I got loads of powers).
Personally, I am open to talks of reconciliation. Sadly, all that your side has offered so far is demands of surrender - personally, I can do nothing but offer a "tough love" approach to those. If you hope for a reconciliation, you need to accept that both sides will need to make concessions. We won't let some guy with a fake surname bully us with fake threats, sorry.