Being a Man
Posted 3 years ago, at the start of May.
Paul Scrivens wrote a post today blasting Bryan Veloso of Avalonstar. Bryan stopped blogging for the month of April without responding to emails, and Paul felt it appropriate to “call him out” in a post today. Avalonstar was a popular member of Paul’s 9rules blogging network and was one of the network’s greatest proponents. Despite their past relationship, Paul chose to publicly defame Bryan based on speculation and frustration.
Paul and the 9rules crew kicked Bryan out after not posting for just one month.† During that month, Bryan’s blog hosted a message from his fiancée explaining that Bryan was taking an indefinite break and asked everyone to understand. Yet Paul felt like he was owed an explanation.
Update: 9:27 PM: Mike Rundle explains the button is merely the result of a plugin, without mal intent. Thanks for the correction.
Paul feels that “calling Bryan out” is the appropriate action to take, even though he, and everybody else, still has no clue why Bryan stopped blogging.
In his post “Ego, Being a Man, and Opening Your Eyes”, Paul calls Bryan’s actions child-like, disrespectful, and egotistical. The post is filled with speculation (e.g. Paul insinuates the message from Bryan’s fiancée was designed by Bryan and was insincere) and Paul’s disrespect for Bryan is apparent from the first sentence — (”Bryan Veloso let his woman post an ominous message talking in vague words about how something has happened with his site”..)
Paul lost a bit of my respect today. It’s one thing to “call Bryan out” in a respectful manner—but disrespecting and defaming him publicly is horribly inappropriate and rather ironic. Bryan was an important part of Paul’s community—if Paul really respected him he wouldn’t have cast his scorn on him so quickly.
Being a man means not resorting to ad-hominem attacks when polite criticism will suffice. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
† Tyme White of 9rules explains that Bryan was removed due to standard 9rules policy of no site, no 9rules. I understand the need for consistency, but maintain it was a mistake to dismiss Bryan so quickly.
1) The Digg This button is on every entry, it’s a plugin.
2) “Rather than resolving his personal issues with Bryan in private, Paul aired his grievances in public today on his blog.” As mentioned in the post and in several comments, we did try to communicate with Bryan numerous times (even after 9rules members put together a support site which he never acknowledged either). Bryan made it seem as though his life was in disarray, but at the same time was posting messages on Twitter and playing DDR, two things that are obviously more important to him than replying to any of our emails (or any of our members’ emails either.)
3) “Paul lost a bit of my respect today. It’s one thing to “call Bryan outâ€? in a respectful manner—but disrespecting and defaming him publicly is horribly inappropriate and rather ironic.” I suppose we were simply returning the favor, since he disrespected us and many of our members when we tried to offer our support and he never even acknowledged us with a reply to our dozens of emails.
4) “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Maybe that analogy would make sense if Paul pulled his blog down and came back without any explanation, but because he hasn’t, the analogy doesn’t stick.
1 — I just added an update to the post correcting my mistake on the digg this button. Since I only saw it on that specific post, I assumed it was added intentionally.
2 — I never said it was inappropriate to criticize Bryan. He may deserve criticism, and perhaps he was irresponsible, but that doesn’t mean Paul has license to publicly ridicule Bryan. What Paul did was mean, disrespectful—almost spiteful.
3 — Bryan didn’t publicly attack 9rule’s credibility in front of an audience of 7,472. Perhaps you felt disrespected by his lack of communication, but he wasn’t demonizing you on his blog. I hardly consider what Paul wrote to be “returning the favor”.
4 — Perhaps the analogy isn’t perfect. What I meant to communicate was the irony of Paul calling Bryan disrespectful while himself being completely disrespectful of Bryan. Being a man means you don’t “return the favor” and engage in 3rd grade pissing contests.
Again, criticize Bryan all you want, but do it in a civil manner. Disrespect shouldn’t beget disrespect.
This is a tough one, it really is. No one wants to hate on someone they are friends with/look up to/admire, but I really couldn’t convince myself that the way Bryan handled things was acceptable. As I mentioned in a comment on Scivs’ post…
Also, Bryan is no longer a 9rules member because he doesn’t have any content to offer the network. I doubt very much he would have been given the boot had he returned with his archives.
Matt, I agree that Paul is entitled to criticise Bryan—maybe that criticism is even deserved, as Bryan could have certainly handled things better than he did. What I find offensive is Paul’s mean-spirited attitude towards Bryan in his post. Public discourse is fine, but public attacks and defamation are another matter altogether.
All I know of Bryan’s exit from 9rules is what he’s told me in conversation—and it doesn’t seem like it was purely a content issue, as others have stayed while posting sparingly.
Regarding your comment on Paul’s blog: I think it’s rather presumptuous to assume this whole thing was a “load of self-designed melodrama”. Problems come up in everyone’s lives sometimes—just because Bryan doesn’t want to publicly talk about it doesn’t mean he’s being insincere or melodramatic.
Hahaha, man are you fucking joking me? I was honest with my words and if you wanted me to be mean-spirited I could’ve thrown out the words I really wanted to. Instead I presented my thoughts in a reasonable manner that could be posted on the site. I’m pretty sure no matter how I put them out there you would’ve considered them mean-spirited and having met you at SXSW you just seem like the kind of cat who isn’t like that at all, which makes sense why you would say it.
I’m glad to hear Bryan talked to you about 9rules because he certainly never talked to us considering the emails we sent him. Why would we want to keep anyone in our community who treats us with no respect? You telling me you let people piss on you and you still hangout with them?
Bryan attacked his own credibility first by allowing Jen to post and then posting his own shit and following it up with nothing considering the concern the community had for him. Don’t think for a second my entry ruined his credibility when he did that himself when he relaunched the site.
Again, he disrespected the public and us personally so why should I pay that same respect back to him? You are making it sound like I came out of no where with this stuff and considering the amount of comments in agreement with me on my site and in emails I’d have to say maybe you need to re-evaluate the situation.
“All I know of Bryan’s exit from 9rules is what he’s told me in conversation—and it doesn’t seem like it was purely a content issue, as others have stayed while posting sparingly.”
I was the one that removed his site. I emailed him asking him what was up with it. I tried to communicate with him. He did not respond. He took the site down - there is a difference between not updating and taking it down. And I waited a decent time before removing it but there was no point in our system checking his site for updates when he took his site down.
If he’s saying to people his site was removed for any other reason that lack of content I am saying point blank: he’s lying.
Paul, Tyme,
You of course had every right and reason to kick him out—9rules is your organization. I’ll take your word that it was a purely content issue—Bryan feels otherwise, and so far I’m inclined to sympathize with him based on your post. I think it was inappropriate and unfair to say things like:
It’s unfair because, to my knowledge, Bryan never publicly attacked you or disrespected you. I might agree that not replying to emails is disrespectful, but that was a private matter—there’s no reason to drag his name through the mud over that. And I’m not saying you shouldn’t have called him out—I’m saying you should have done it respectfully and not resorted to ad hominem attacks like calling him a child.
You’re probably right that however you put it, I would have been defensive of Bryan. I’m on pretty friendly terms with the guy and I’ve had no difficulty getting in touch with him (I even got him to do an interview with me). But I damn well wouldn’t have written this post and I wouldn’t have stood up for Bryan to this degree had you aired your grievance in a way that didn’t resort to name-calling. Hell, I don’t even fully disagree with you. I think Bryan’s feet should be held to the fire over this—I just think it should have been done in a less offensive and sensational manner.
Paul, I’ve still got respect for you—but this post stepped over the line in my mind, regardless of the number of commenters agreeing with you. I don’t disagree with your message as much as I disagree with its delivery. Again, regardless of how disrespectful you feel Bryan was that doesn’t justify a disrespectful and slanderous response. You don’t need to call him a child, you don’t need to call him a lier, and you don’t need to call him an egotist. That accomplishes nothing, and it only weakens your argument against him.
The irony here is that Bryan’s friends, in his defense, have made the situation much worse. Scrivs has been accused of trying to get the entry on Digg, doing the entry to get traffic for a site he doesn’t even own anymore and now it seems Bryan is telling people that his site was removed for a reason other than lack of content. Oh, and let’s not forget that Scrivs should change his writing style so his entry wasn’t so mean.
Scrivs wrote the entry on a site that is NOT a 9rules member. The content is no longer aggregated via 9rules at all, so the exposure was minimal but it allowed for Scrivs (in the style he has ALWAYS written) to clarify what happened, that Bryan is not a 9rules member, and that we do not condone what he did.
The more you defend the worse you make Bryan and yourself look. Scrivs wrote his entry on the 4th, it’s the 8th. Who keeps this being brought to the forefront - his friends.
Wow, way to gang up on someone giving you some constructive criticism. The bottom line is some people think your approach was tactless. Refuting this by basically claiming you could’ve been more rude is also tactless. Just because some people agree with your evaluation of what Bryan did, doesn’t mean the way you approached it was also proper.
Some of you folks are too quick to act like you’re on a playground. Cool off. Take a cue from Matt and express your opinions while being a grown up.
I think we’ve all agreed the reason he didn’t respond was because he wasn’t about. When he was, he was slowly trying to get back into things. It can be just as stressing getting back into things.
Yes, Scrivs. You come off as a calm guy. You’re a nice guy. I used to respect you a ton. But would you please see how rude you’ve been here? You’re telling me that Bryan has insulted you by being so rude, has disrespected you. But what you did was ten times worse. by publicly insulting him. You have fights with friends, of course. But the day you do it in a crowded place and you really rip into him, will be the day your friend is most offended.
If you really had as much respect for him in the first place, you couldn’t insult him as much you did, in the manner you did. You presumed to know the facts and anyone who said differently was automatically wrong. Like myself, who you said wasn’t listening to your point, but then again, by your answers in this post: It definitely was the other way around.
Scrivs, you got to understand. Bryan probably has a good reason for doing what he did. But you are too stubborn to realise. Yes, You had lots of emails to deal with but really? You did this over a bunch of emails? How petty is that?
And next time Paul, don’t send your minions in an all out attack. It’s not pleasant and it’s childish.
Bryan’s blog hosted a message from his fiancée explaining that Bryan was taking an indefinite break and asked everyone to understand.
Ummm no, no it didn’t.
Her EXACT words were:
Due to circumstances beyond his control, Bryan has been forced to take Avalonstar down indefinitely. He is needless to say a bit restless and emotional and he doesn’t seem to want to talk about it too much. He has, however, allowed me to write this message. We are trying to make any arrangements that are possible, but it’s proving… complicated. As of right now we are uncertain of what is going to happen and even the feasibility of bringing Avalonstar back. In the meantime, I ask that you all continue to support Bryan and Avalonstar as usual, and please wish for the best.
Like I said, nothing is certain at the moment but I will say one thing… this could change everything.
Like I always say… “It’s all in how you say it”
1) She posted the note, not Bryan. Normal cognitive assumption following a vague note from someone other than the owner of the blog would mean that something worse than “a break from blogging” has occurred.
2) Why such vague language. Why can’t you just leave a note like “Hey guys, I’m taking a break from blogging. I don’t know when or if I’ll be back but don’t worry, I’m not sick.”
People in the 9rules network called him, emailed him, texted him, and even spent money to show support for what seemed like foul play. When it turned out to be nothing short of a breather and a redesign, you bet your ass it stung.
Zach: Let’s forget about Bryan since I moved on from that a while ago (glad to see you still around). And if you think Mike and Tyme are minions again you got your world twisted. I don’t control them and they don’t control me. The irony is you are Veloso’s minion, but really who gives a fuck about this stuff anymore. Oh you do…
But just like you defend your friend Bryan I’m going to defend mine. If you got words to throw out direct them at me and not them. I don’t ask them to comment or speak their minds, they do so on their own. That’s what makes us powerful. In the opposite corner you have you who is proud enough to stand up and fight for what he believes in (props to you for that), but your friends don’t seem to follow the same path. If you want to call what Mike and Tyme as being my minions, then that’s cool, because these minions seem to be more friends than your friends will ever be.
Thanks for hosting the battle Rob and enjoy your weekend everyone.
When it turned out to be nothing short of a breather and a redesign, you bet your ass it stung.
He never said it was just that.
Really? Because I noticed you posted here before me?
Actually, I think Mike is the only one of the 9rules lot who’s been clear and not aggressive. But yes, I think you ganged up, like thugs.
Rob, let’s say I didn’t remove Bryan’s site. His site 4 entries, incomplete design, no archives. It’s still not up to 9rules quality standards. He still has no content so I’d still have to remove it.
Or are you saying I should make an exception because it’s Bryan - which would be a complete insult to the submissions I’m reviewing now?
Zach, I said everything I have to say to you my blog. Everything else: SXSW 08
[…] I started out the day with the intent to post something completely different, but then I came across this post by Rob Goodlatte, which led me to this post by Paul Scrivens, both regarding the recent sequence of events surrounding Bryan Veloso and his blog Avalonstar. My wheels started turning, and though I might be a little late, I couldn’t resist the urge to post my thoughts about all the drama. […]