2013 Gaia - some questions

Visitor Count

+1	100.0%	[ 15 ]
Total Votes:			[ 15 ]

[jngdn]

Well, I came across some threads from 2013, and there was actually a lot of interesting stuff regarding Gaia. (Particularly post-CEO change.) But I was confused by what some people were referring to, so I thought I might ask a few people that were a part of the community while it was all going down.

1. So I get that it was a change in the ToS that we aren't allowed to mention the name of Gaia employees (a.k.a. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and his sidekick buddy). Does this include a good context? And does it apply to all employees? Haha, this reminds me of how people couldn't say Voldemort in the 7th book because they put a tracer on the word.
2. What's this "offensive survey" people were talking about? I saw that a lot in threads around Sept-Oct 2013
3. There was something else about not being allowed to criticize Gaia or something, and it's a ban-worthy offense. Is that true?

Well, that's it. I don't want this to turn into a big argument and what-not. I'm just hoping for some actual answers and maybe have a discussion if people are feeling really chatty.

Thanks~

[jngdn]

Gash Thrashum

Just to clear up the first and second parts, there's no rule against naming Gary Schofield or even saying Gary Schofield signaled the beginning Gaia's descent into madness. The reason why anyone would get banned or did get banned around that time, is due to directing abusive remarks and harassing the CEO or employees on site. If I recall correctly, Gary was even being threatened on social media networks, so it wasn't just his account on Gaia or inbox. You can criticize and name these public figures without fearing the banhammer, but like any other user, you could face a ban or warning for harassment. In any case, that sort of morphed into this theory that you couldn't name the CEO for whatever reason, so people started calling him Goldemort and it sort of stuck.

Someone else can explain the survey fiasco.

Thanks for clearing that part up! I thought it was weird people wouldn't be able to say his name since it's public information, and it makes sense that it was just a false rumor. ^^

[Adnama Lavode]

Here's some info on the survey. It's pretty telling that they got their survey content from 9gag.

Though what they don't really mention in that thread is that after Gaia apologized they sent the same survey out again through PMs with only the offensive titles marked out, being replaced by numbers. The survey was basically the same, so they kind of missed the point and voided their apology.

Also the same survey started with asking people to pick their favorite images of Catwoman drawn in various styles (11 different images if I remember correctly), all of which were taken from google images and peoples' art galleries without crediting the original artists at all.

So yeah. They ******** up.

[Magically Clueless]

I have no information to give... but I still don't get anything about that survey thing. There's just too many questions.

1. Why would they send a survey like that anyway?
2. What idiot thought that was a good idea?

But the answer to #2 is that someone might have sneaked past the lines to trollolol. It all seems fishy to me though. I really don't get it.

[Ami Satomora]

Magically Clueless

I have no information to give... but I still don't get anything about that survey thing. There's just too many questions.

1. Why would they send a survey like that anyway?
2. What idiot thought that was a good idea?

But the answer to #2 is that someone might have sneaked past the lines to trollolol. It all seems fishy to me though. I really don't get it.

IIRC, they were trying to be humorous but it backfired massively.

[Magically Clueless]

Ami Satomora

IIRC, they were trying to be humorous but it backfired massively.

hm. no kidding.
I just can't wrap my head around humor that feeds off mocking people's body types like that. Apparently a lot of people felt the same. There are jokes you can make, but... yeah, it's very obvious why that backfired.

[Whispers of Delusion]

Since the first 2 were answered already, here is #3

Quote:

3. There was something else about not being allowed to criticize Gaia or something, and it's a ban-worthy offense. Is that true?

No, (constructive) criticism is allowed (granted that it follows the rules and guidelines). It being hateful, rude or any other form of flaming or harassment directed towards the company or a member of its staff is of course not allowed, but that's clearly stated in the ToS and just common sense.
If criticism wouldn't be allowed there wouldn't be a Site Feedback forum after all.

[ninja-no-ryu]

To those questioning about why there even were surveys like that in the first place:

At the time gaia interactive was developing another, more adult, avatar-based website and wanted our valued opinion on body-types so that they might make those preferred bodies for the new site in a new art style. This site became what was known as and is now defunct Tentacl. It lasted for all about a year (less than that I think) before gaia interactive closed its doors.

[Penn Almasy]

ninja-no-ryu

This site became what was known as and is now defunct Tentacl. It lasted for all about a year (less than that I think) before gaia interactive closed its doors.

Aww, Tentacl's dead? Shame, I kind of liked the Gaia-Tumblr hybrid style.

Well, at least I didn't spend any money on it.

That said, if the "no naming CEO" rule is to protect him from harassment, that's not too bad. I still have bones to pick with him and his poor economic choices, but I'm not going to pull those bones out of his body.