On the 'rules' regarding entry

An issue, in my mind, has come up; it’s been stated that a developer, due to past history, is not being allowed into RBXDev. I take issue with this, because in my mind, this is a forum for developers, and any well-known, successful, skilled developer should be allowed in.

A developer has been refused from even being further consideration due to multiple insults to the admins. While I agree that he shouldn’t be doing that, he is still a developer. A developer should be allowed in, regardless of past behavior, and then banned from the forums if he acts up. It’s not as if anything the developer does isn’t easily undone.

I’m not just applying this to the developer I’ve mentioned. I am talking in a general sense. Take loleris for example. He is, indeed, a well-known, successful, fairly skilled developer. However, he can’t act mature here, so he was banned. That’s how it should happen; think of a developer as their skillset, include them if their skillset is worthy of being here, and then remove them if need be.

No.

They’re not obliged to add anyone to this forum. It’s their choice.

loleris?

[quote] No.

They’re not obliged to add anyone to this forum. It’s their choice. [/quote]
They may not be obliged to add anyone, and it IS their choice, but I disagree with their choice criteria.
I’m not obliged to agree. It’s my choice.

ROBLOX offers this platform for us to actually speak with each other and showcase our works. If we allow such a User inside the RbxDev community, then it can go wrong.

Of course they have the full right to deny a user entry. I personally would drop the ‘subject’, since when someone mess up like that he shouldn’t be allowed in a mature forum.

I’m not denying them the right to deny users, I’m simply stating my disagreement with this case (and eventually, future cases). They should not be denying users based on perceived maturity beforehand, but rather, skills as a developer. They should, however, ban anyone who posts low-quality content, spams, etc…

Alright. But can you agree that when someone does this things on social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc) that he will continue on this forums ? When someone has a bad moderation history, he shouldn’t be allowed.

What about I let Jaredvaldez join. (He is a developer, right ?)

We’ve had worse. If he can contribute positively to the discussion, and has developed games (which I’d say he hasn’t, since he stole 'em), then go ahead.

[quote] I take issue with this, because in my mind, this is a forum for developers, and any well-known, successful, skilled developer should be allowed in.
[/quote]

That’s the problem. It’s not for well-known, successful, and skilled developers. It’s for well-known, successful, skilled, and mature developers. If they make it a point to insult the admins on multiple occasions, then I doubt he is the most mature person in the world.

Also, the point of this forum wasn’t for the admins to moderate users. It’s to let people in and have them behave. Banning members shouldn’t be a sorting system to decide who should be here or not; it should be a last resort to remove those who fall through the cracks.

I agree with TheLuaWeaver. I don’t think the notion of “maturity” is a good one to apply here, and I don’t think a person’s “maturity” can be judged from his moderation history anyway.

Also, I have absolutely no problem with people insulting the admins, other developers, or myself. I’m fine with people doing whatever they want as long as their contributions to the forums, as a whole, are more useful than harmful. Of course, if they insult people gratuitously and don’t contribute, then we’d rather have them not be here. I don’t think the moderation history is a good indicator of this at all.

Regarding moderation, I certainly agree that the staff shouldn’t need to moderate this forum; there are other solutions that make filtering the bad content out possible without requiring any intervention from them, so they could just use these solutions instead, and they wouldn’t need to exclude anyone.

This is true. Before I got on this forum I had my old main deleted because I was an idiot and didn’t think about the consequences of what I posted. I’d like to think I’ve changed from that; thus I believe that moderation history may not fully represent somebody. Unless of course what they did was done in close proximity to their nomination.

How far back in moderation history do they go? A person can change a lot in a year, let alone 3 or 4.

[quote] I take issue with this, because in my mind, this is a forum for developers, and any well-known, successful, skilled developer should be allowed in.
[/quote]

That’s the problem. It’s not for well-known, successful, and skilled developers. It’s for well-known, successful, skilled, and mature developers. If they make it a point to insult the admins on multiple occasions, then I doubt he is the most mature person in the world.

Also, the point of this forum wasn’t for the admins to moderate users. It’s to let people in and have them behave. Banning members shouldn’t be a sorting system to decide who should be here or not; it should be a last resort to remove those who fall through the cracks.[/quote]

Then why am I here?

In the past, I have publicly attacked and denounced Roblox and the people who run it. That was years ago, immediately before I left my account inactive for three years straight.
During that time, I was invited to this forum. Given my actions in the past, especially the last they’ve heard of me, I wouldn’t be fit for this forum, right?
That’s exactly the point people are trying to make here. Sure, he’s attacked and denounced the roblox admins, but that doesn’t mean he’d still do so now. I’m (at least somewhat) capable of contributing to the discussion on this forum. I cringe every time I think about what I said back then - what makes you think he couldn’t be the same?

I’m going to drag RbxDevAlex’s comment from this thread as it’s pretty close to how we feel.

[quote] This day and age sucks, his past history with Roblox staff came to bite him in the ass and it was his own fault. Like others have said this is like applying for a real job, and if you previously shat on the employer (metaphorically not literally) they aren’t going to take kindly to your requests.
[/quote]

This forum is hosted at ROBLOX.com. It’s staffed by ROBLOX Employees. It exists as a place for our top creative members to support each other and to communicate with the company. It’s a privileged membership and channel of communication. We have the right as a company to decide who is on the forum or not. I don’t think we’ve ever been unclear about that.

There is no single “rule” regarding entry. Each nomination is decided on a case by case basis. Some people get second (3rd, 4th) chances and some don’t. Maybe it was a mistake to share some of the reasoning around our decision regarding 4Sci publicly. There’s more to it than I said, more to it than just Twitter in the past. But I felt like you, our existing community, deserved some explanation given the number of nominations. It seemed better to nip it in the bud than let people keep nominating him.

There is not a sudden bias springing up here. The bridges burned by 4Sci were burned long ago, and then re-burned a few more times for good measure - by him. There are consequences. Don’t make him a martyr just because you like him. Even before the glimmer of the concept of this forum sprung into the chaos that is John’s brain, 4Sci was never going to be allowed here.

[quote] This day and age sucks, his past history with Roblox staff came to bite him in the ass and it was his own fault. Like others have said this is like applying for a real job, and if you previously shat on the employer (metaphorically not literally) they aren’t going to take kindly to your requests.
[/quote]

This forum is hosted at ROBLOX.com. It’s staffed by ROBLOX Employees. It exists as a place for our top creative members to support each other and to communicate with the company. It’s a privileged membership and channel of communication. We have the right as a company to decide who is on the forum or not. I don’t think we’ve ever been unclear about that.

There is no single “rule” regarding entry. Each nomination is decided on a case by case basis. Some people get second (3rd, 4th) chances and some don’t. Maybe it was a mistake to share some of the reasoning around our decision regarding 4Sci publicly. There’s more to it than I said, more to it than just Twitter in the past. But I felt like you, our existing community, deserved some explanation given the number of nominations. It seemed better to nip it in the bud than let people keep nominating him.

There is not a sudden bias springing up here. The bridges burned by 4Sci were burned long ago, and then re-burned a few more times for good measure - by him. There are consequences. Don’t make him a martyr just because you like him. Even before the glimmer of the concept of this forum sprung into the chaos that is John’s brain, 4Sci was never going to be allowed here.

[spoiler]

[/spoiler][/quote]
Completely off topic however, I loved the last GIF

[quote] There is no single “rule” regarding entry. Each nomination is decided on a case by case basis. Some people get second (3rd, 4th) chances and some don’t. Maybe it was a mistake to share some of the reasoning around our decision regarding 4Sci publicly. There’s more to it than I said, more to it than just Twitter in the past. But I felt like you, our existing community, deserved some explanation given the number of nominations. It seemed better to nip it in the bud than let people keep nominating him.

There is not a sudden bias springing up here. The bridges burned by 4Sci were burned long ago, and then re-burned a few more times for good measure - by him. There are consequences. Don’t make him a martyr just because you like him. Even before the glimmer of the concept of this forum sprung into the chaos that is John’s brain, 4Sci was never going to be allowed here. [/quote]

I guess this makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

Personally, I don’t care about 4sci in particular. I’m thinking about the general case. Anyone’s allowance into here should not be based on maturity, because who knows? He might actually be able to hold a mature discussion.

What would happen if he isn’t able to? A simple ban works wonders.