free Nate

[uDevil]

I participated in the thread in question and I was enjoying the ongoing discussion. I'm shocked and disappointed that Nate was banned. I can understand why Mason would take the criticism personally, but on the face of it, this punishment is unwarranted.

I own nearly all of 2+2's library of books and I've enjoyed and benefited from reading them. Nevertheless, I agree with Nate's basic criticism, if not his approach. That won't stop me from buying the future books 2+2 has announced, and I seriously doubt that anyone that read the thread in question would be deterred either. In fact, if I came across that thread without ever having read a 2+2 book, I'd be more intrigued than put off.

Other posters have been much more harshly critical (past the point of rudeness), without being banned. In a better world, Nate would not have been banned, and the discussion would have taken its course.

[rothko]

it's just a tempban, people.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
it's just a tempban, people.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From: 2+2Forums"@forums.conjelco.com
Date: Jul 1, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Notification from the The 2+2 Forums
To: [nate]

You have been banned at the The 2+2 Forums.
Reason: Had Enough
Ban duration: User is banned permanently.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

udevil - your point made me realize an aspect of my post that did not 100% correctly convey my position on this.

While I think Mason could have taken far less harsh action here such as locking the thread or asking Nate to stop participating, I actually think neither of these less-severe methods were necessary either. Just that he COULD have done that if he was so bothered by the tone/direction that he thought he needed to something.

But really, there wasn't anything worth acting on at all. That thread absolutely should have simply been allowed to continue as is WITH Nate participating in his mostly polite and (contrary to what Mason thinks) not horribly anti-2+2 way.

[Cornell Fiji]

Mason,

Count me as one more vote saying that you were way out of line with this banning.

You set a terrible precedent and you banned a terrific poster. Hopefully you will quickly realize how out of line you were and you will extend an olive branch to Nate tomorrow.

Please don't ban me for being critical,
Steve

[Larry the Dog]

Maybe Nate is not a serious poker player -- I don't know who he is -- but why would anyone who plays a serious amount of poker want these texts to be easily comprehensible? I understand they can help you improve, but wouldn't an inexperienced player stand more to gain by cleaning the text up?

I can obviously see why Mason would want things to be correct, though.

[kurtkatt]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Nate is not a serious poker player -- I don't know who he is -- but why would anyone who plays a serious amount of poker want these texts to be easily comprehensible? I understand they can help you improve, but wouldn't an inexperienced player stand more to gain by cleaning the text up?

I can obviously see why Mason would want things to be correct, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

BOOM, headshot!


but seriously. This ban come across as somewhat silly (like totally unwarranted and rash). Good thing that Mason already opened the door for a return in a few days or so..

[UpstateMatt]

When Nate told me that he got banned because of his thread, I honestly didn't believe him.

Three quick points, some already discussed here:

1)He was clearly banned because of content. Had his comments been about any other series of books, there's no way a ban would have happened. His tone, level of politeness, and manner of debate were all well within the bounds of normal 2+2 behavior.

2)What would an apology from Nate look like? I’m still trying to figure out what he did wrong. He wrote what any professional in the writing world would say about 2+2 books --- they're the best, but they aren't written that well. Isn't this what 2+2 wrote at the beginning of each of the old books, in the "note"? What if I just reprint that section of a 2+2 book in a thread? Is that ban-worthy - calling Mason and friends "not great writers" in the very words they call themselves "not great writers?” Seems like a farce.

3) The idea that superior content absolves an author from good style is strange. It's true that the best content will usually, in a free market, find its way to popularity. But part of having superior content is having good style, good marketing, and a good reputation. Many in the original thread seem to be denying this point. But Mason et. al inherently accept it - the cover contests, the assurance that they use editors, etc. Improving a piece of writing is not something that can ever end --- it becomes a cost/benefit analysis in each and every case. For Nate to point out that benefits of further improvement to the books outweigh the costs is a debatable question. But the reasonableness of the question is not debatable. Just the same for any piece of writing.

None of this really matters, because...

4) this is a private forum and Mason can do what he wants. What he does speaks only to character. And for a crew that just yesterday was proclaiming that Nate "was taking the ball and going home," this speaks volumes.

In at least one case — me — the strange strategy of banning-dissent-to-save-book-sales has failed. I won’t be buying any of the new 2+2 books until Nate is reinstated. Even people who make seemingly unreasonable and stubborn decisions sometimes listen to capitalistic pressure.

Looking forward to being banned as well,
matt

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
In at least one case — me — the strange strategy of banning-dissent-to-save-book-sales has failed. I won’t be buying any of the new 2+2 books until Nate is reinstated. Even people who make seemingly unreasonable and stubborn decisions sometimes listen to capitalistic pressure.

Looking forward to being banned as well,
matt

[/ QUOTE ]

You can add me to this list.

[Triumph36]

wow this is a joke - he made a few comments that might be construed as over the line, but I think he's genuinely trying to help. FWIW, I think he's right too.