May not have realized it but you just touched on a core problem. Hypocrisy. Throughout this entire thread there have been several instances of people feeling that they had the right to correct my version of history without being subject to the same themselves. By all means if someone doesn't agree with way things happened, they ought to have the ability to say so. However to jump down someone's throat the second that process is sent in the other direction is incredibly hypocritical.
I think the problem with all of this is that it seems everyone (in this thread at least) is correcting your version of history. The thing is, anyone can misremember. Anyone can trick themselves into believing an absolute. I am sure a 3 comment thread and some talk in a chat area was hardly even a factor in as big of a decision as it is to switch forum packages. I wasn't even here, but I can tell you if a swear filter was the primary reason for switching, that in that of itself is a silly reason to make such a huge switch. Most people involved seem to agree on this.
I wasn't here. I just want you to sort of see how it's coming off. You're taking on a "you vs everyone else" mentality atm, and that isn't going to get you anywhere. If everyone disagrees with what that history is, you have to be willing to accept that may your misremembering or, more than likely, was never really in the loop on why the switch was made in the first place. Right or wrong as that may have been at the time, that more than likely seems like the case, meaning you wouldn't honestly know the full story. I think in all of this we need to all step back a bit. The past is in the past. Does it really matter anymore?
All the worst moments in our history come from people believing the same rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to them. That one someone does something unpleasant to them it's a serious offense, but when they do to the other person instead of the other way around, it's not only no big deal, but necessary. It is more than a little unfair to attack me for doing the exact same thing so many of you are doing right now.
To be fair, I didn't really see anyone attack you. They disagreed with your version of the history and clearly laid out what they believed happen. That version was then confirmed by 2 or 3 other people directly involved. You also admit that people were left in the dark. Indeed, that is an issue, but perhaps did you consider you were one of those people left in the dark? Because if so, how would you know why the switch was made? The only comment I see that might be construed as an "attack" is when someone basically pleads with you to stop. Becuase they are tired of this going round and round as matt vs everyone else. Gotta learn sometimes to just let things go. This goes for everyone, not just Matt.
Far, FAR too often, people are just jumping to the conclusion that someone is being hostile and, and maliciously lying, if the way they remember things is not the same. We're forgetting that we're all human beings with our own minds and our own priorities. And what was deeply important to someone else could have just been a regular day and an entirely forgettable event for another.
Yes, you mentioned this before. I understand this mindset. But we're just talking about facts verse perception I feel. You perceived they were changed primarily for a swear filter. Several are saying that wasn't true. Most are saying it wasn't even part of the conversation. So you perceived it was, but reality appears to be it wasn't. I don't think they felt you were acting hostile. That is, until you accused them of it. :/
And as for what the rest of you are saying, you're forgetting one key detail. Then just as much now the people outside the staff were deliberately kept out of the loop. Not told what is going on and sometimes even fed outright disinformation. I can assure you with absolute certainty that in the shoutbox, we were very, very explicitly told by the admins at the time that the censor was the reason. Instead of assuming I'm being hostile and evil and mwhaha, you didn't stop to consider the more mundane and obvious answer. That the original statement was sarcasm, thus easily forgotten as jokes were all over the place then, and because the rest of us were deliberately left out the loop, there was nothing else to go on.
Possible. There is also a case where, for better or worse, sometimes the public messaging is different than the real reasons because you don't want to expose someone in particular or that you have a security risk until after the fact. So they may say it's because of X, because they can't really reveal Y yet. It's not meant to harm anyone, just to protect people and because you know, when a switch is happening you have to say something about why. Otherwise you end up with angry people. Not saying this is wholly right, but I can see where it might be needed. It may not have even happened at all. All I do know is, you are the only one saying this was a reason and the only one pushing it and no one is corroberating your version. When the facts work against you this strongly and you have no new evidence or support to bring the table, you have to back down. I do this in debates and articles I wrte too. If someone comes at me evidence - if I have no new angle, no new evidence or support, I have to back down because at the end of the day, it's hard to argue against facts that have multiple people confirming them.
All this fuss over something that, at least in 2016, is trivial at best. You switched, ti worked out well for the whole, so at the end who cares what the reasons were?
I think in the end, the best is to really let the past be the past. This is 2016, not 2013, 2014, or 2015. We're here to talk about a merger and concerns with that merger. I understand concerns over communication in the past and I can assure you that at least at ZI, that wouldn't be the case. But, beyond that, I think this conversation needs to move back to the original topic it was about in the first place.