Look, I just want to emphasise that whilst I came here feeling annoyed about the Wikipedia issue, I'm well beyond that at this stage. I love this society, and I hate this split, and henceforth my only aim is to make things right. I'll do whatever I can to make that happen, and it's the only reason I'm here.
Could we drop this whole "there may be problems" and "the complaints might be valid" crap? We left you. The only method of unification you're interested in is us coming back. You keep dancing around the subject and avoiding that we simply had a point.
I really don't think this is fair. I've acknowledged the problems with the other forum, in private and in public, many times in the past. I have previously made many attempts to try and involve people, including Parsifal, in the running of the site. Those were in no way satisfactory, and some of them just didn't happen, but not because I didn't want them to. I wouldn't have tried to make them happen if I didn't. I have in this very thread stated that people left because of legitimate grievances, and that they should be consulted on whatever happens (if anything does happen). What you say above simply isn't representative of what I have said, past and present.
I am open to all kinds of solutions, and you're kind of assuming a lot there, without much basis. In fact without any basis, given what I've tried to make happen in the past. That other people didn't agree, and that I could not persuade them, is not solely and exclusively my fault. I'm (yet again) trying here.
No, this isn't about personalities. Pretending otherwise is simply not tenable. This is about John Davis saying he'll do things and then not doing things. This is about you and Daniel disappearing for 6 months at a time, then deleting 1.5 months of posts and saying "lol, sorry, carry on". This is about banning random words because some guy doesn't like it, and dismissing any discussion of how ridiculous that is. This is about making up evidence to ban users you don't like, when you don't like them. This is about you having a set of rules and then not following it yourselves. That is what this is about, and it is something you have yet to acknowledge. If you have some personal issues with us, feel free to discuss those in private, but stop polluting this conversation with those. Meanwhile, any discussion of a hypothetical reunion between the forums will be public and democratic.
I have acknowledged most, if not all of these things, indeed partly in this thread, and several times in the past. Is it a
mea culpa you're looking for? I have frequently apologised for my lengthy absences. It doesn't make them OK, but it's simply not true to suggest that I haven't. You can treat me as some sort of avatar for all the problems with the other forum and harangue me until page 52 of this thread, but it's not going to get us anywhere. You have made your issues with the running of the other site extremely clear, and the fact that so many members and mods have moved over is proof (as I mentioned earlier) that those grievances were real and legitimate. If there is something more you would like me to say about that, you're going to have to spell it out, because I'm struggling to think of anything useful.
Oh, and if it's Daniel that has these personal issues, then he's the one that should raise them.
It's not like Daniel is against the idea of a well-managed forum with a team of dedicated and invested admins/mods (and it's clear that you guys are).
He very clearly is, and he's proven it over and over again. We suggested tons of improvements that do not require our involvement in any way. They have been universally ignored. If you want to make progress in this conversation, you need to acknowledge and fix that. Dismissing all your screw-ups and claiming that they're all down to Daniel having some mysterious "good reasons" to distrust us won't get us anywhere.
But if you and Parsifal are going to be involved
No one said we would be - perhaps this is something that would come up if we actually started negotiating. As of now, we do not know what the members want and you're calling for closed-doors discussions. This is a perfect example of why your forum has failed. Establish your goal first, then work to achieve it. Not the other way around.
then the issue of interpersonal trust absolutely is there, and I think that is something that is best handled in private.
Yes. Daniel is welcome to e-mail me with any issues he has about me. He always has been. In fact, I reached out to him on multiple occasions, and never received a response. Frankly, it's his turn.
For one thing, I know that my experiences of private conversations with you have generally been a lot more civil and fruitful than our public ones. I think there is an extent to which the public nature of such discussions can make them more heated, and whilst that may be good for thrashing out policy, I don't think it is good when you're trying to build trust. There is absolutely no cause or need for that process to be under public scrutiny, and I think trying to do so would be highly counter-productive.
Of course, I agree, and that's why I usually reach out to you in private when I feel that things do get too heated. I also agree that we usually reach good conclusions to some issues that way. I've attempted the same with Daniel, but it won't work unless he starts responding.
What I disagree about is that the two problems should be handled as one. Addressing the userbase's issues and sorting out personal squabbles between Daniel and some of us are two completely separate issues. As long as you're clear about the fact that we will publicly discuss the userbase's issues, I don't mind having a private chat with Daniel about why he may or may not distrust me. Unfortunately, that requires for him to talk sometimes. Don't you think that it's already bad enough that you have to come here and tell us what Daniel thinks? Can he not speak for himself?
Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can (I really thought I had made this clear, but perhaps not): I do not think the two problems should be treated as one. That is why I said "...when that work [i.e. regarding trust] is done, we can discuss how to proceed in terms of consultation/mediation/negotiation...". Maybe you're annoyed, maybe you're angry, and maybe there's a touch of 'rage-post' going on here, but you're not really giving what I've said fair consideration or representation. I just think one necessarily has to happen before the other, and that it should be handled in private. When it comes to actually discussing practical matters, I'm happy to see that done in public. I've already said as much.
As for Daniel: I am not his spokesperson, his representative, or his mother. I am here as me, on my behalf, in the hope that I can end what I see as a damaging split in a community I care about. I am Daniel's friend though, and he does talk to me, so I do know how he feels and what he thinks, up to a point. Moreover, a lot of this is essentially public knowledge, so in some respects it's entirely obvious how Daniel feels about this.
Given all that, it would probably be helpful if you stopped talking to me like I'm some kind of messenger. I am trying to act as a go-between, but that's something I decided to do for my own reasons and on my own initiative. I am not responsible for the trust issues that exist, but I do recognise that they are a problem and that they need to be fixed. I want to make a go of that first, because realistically I know that nothing can happen before that does.