2018-11-04 18:11:30

Hello, everyone,

First, I'd like to thank one and all for your patience and understanding during these tumultuous last few weeks. We've been facing a situation that has never been seen here before, and it is safe to say that few of us have carried ourselves in a way which covers us in glory. Nevertheless, here we are, and it is high time to try and make some headway on a solution that will work for everyone. We all have some vested interest in this community, after all. Below, you will find the conclusions we have come to regarding Dark, the mod team as a whole, Lori/Walter and that whole sordid business, as well as our plans for the future. I apologize in advance, because this is going to be a long post.

You may find it suspect that the newest member of the team is yet again speaking for the majority. Rest assured that the following post has been vetted for accuracy, fairness and intent by the mailing list, and we are in agreement here. I am wordy by nature, and in one specific instance I am a relatively impartial observer who walked in late. If and when I switch back and forth between "we" and "I", please take it in the way it is intended rather than being hypercritical and assuming the worst. Open minds and a willingness to listen are absolutely vital in cases like these.

Now, onward ho!

Walter's Banning

By now, it should come as no surprise to any of you that Walter's banning has been determined to have been performed in error. Nothing can entirely undo the harm that has been done to his character and his reputation for this mistake, and so we offer a full and unconditional apology for our behaviour as a team in the processing of this case. We will be putting in place more internal protocols to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again (see further below for details). We have done wrong here, and want to do whatever we can to make right, if that is still possible.

Culpability

It should also come as no surprise to you that Dark has, until his resignation, been the longest-standing member of this staff team, having been called upon hundreds if not thousands of times to handle the day-to-day concerns that go along with being an audiogames.net administrator. This mostly positive track record has, of late, come under fire, and that scrutiny is not without merit. While we actively repudiate much of the character assassination to be found in SmokeJ's blog post, there are nevertheless some troubling aspects to the issue of Walter and Lori which have come to light. To wit, Dark's investigation was not nearly thorough enough (by his own admission, I should add), which resulted in more weight being given to the supposed victim's testimony than it actually warranted. There is some reason for this, given the nature of the alligations, but care must still be exercised, especially when the consequences might be grave. It has also recently been divulged to us that the team was given information undermining the validity of Turtlepower's own commentary - which was a large part of the corroborating evidence Dark used in the prosecution of Walter - and that, with this knowledge in hand, they should have, at the very least, re-examined Lori's testimony in light of the details they received. The moderation team does not recollect having been given this info, but admits that personal circumstances and the inherently finicky nature of mailing lists might have played some part here. We have concluded that although there was almost certainly no malice on behalf of Dark or any of the rest of the team and no particular animosity toward Walter, Dark's individual circumstances might have made him an innately bad candidate to preside over such dealings in the first place. As a result, Dark made a very bad decision, and was passively supported by the team at that time, for which Dark  has apologized and for which he has paid by resigning from his position.
Given that Dark voluntarily stepped down, we did not feel it necessary or helpful in any way to "fire" him. His tenure, and the majority of his record, suggested to us that, despite his error in this matter, he deserved to depart with his dignity intact. Moreover, to directly countermand what Dark had done fragments the team even further, at a time when we can ill-afford to do so. At the end of the day, we are all now painfully aware of what transpired, and our choice to maintain a cohesive front represents a desire to project solidarity, and not an intention to sweep the whole mess away without a backward glance. no single person should engage in this sort of investigation without external validation from at least one other member of the team, and this self-check will ensure that this sort of thing will never happen again. I believe it is important here to remember the bigger picture without letting it dominate the conversation. we promise you that transparency within the team going forward is a high priority. Secrets were not kept out of malice or spite, but lines of communication were broken by multiple people for reasons I can frankly only guess at. It is useless to chase this line of inquiry further, and unfair to put all of the heat on Dark. The harm has been done, the affected parties have been addressed, and the problematic behaviour has been first identified and then publicly displayed for all to see.

On that note, I would also like to take a moment here and add a personal note. Please, please, please...if you have evidence that proves that something we have said or done is in factual error, or if you yourself have said something you now wish to retract - possibly because you once felt pressured to help a friend, and now realize you should not have done so - I urge you to come to us privately to discuss the matter. If nothing is done after you talk to one of us, feel free to get in touch with everyone else. I will absolutely not lay Walter's fate at Turtlepower's feet, but there is no doubt in my mind that if Turtlepower's admission of her own complicity had been more widely recognized by the moderator team somehow, it would have significantly impacted deliberations in Walter's favour. I cannot personally speak to why this case was so convoluted, and am not prepared to speculate. What I can tell you, however, is that going forward, we intend to be far more transparent on all fronts, so this sort of confusion is extremely unlikely to dog us further.

Have you noticed how often I'm citing transparency? That should tell you how deeply upset this situation has made me, and how troublesome the whole issue has been for the team. We must be better, and we will be. it is as simple as that.

Plans for the future

This situation has unearthed the need for change in a way that is more urgent than we had realized, and we are going to make every effort to invoke that change for the betterment of the community as a whole. Here are a few of our plans.

1. As we are able, we're going to rewrite the rules, changing the language and ultimately clarifying things in a way that will let users see said rules before they attempt to sign up. Someone pointed out to me that a person should not be held to standards they didn't agree to, and I wholeheartedly support this. We are dealing with two forum owners who are extremely difficult to connect with, however, so we are asking for your patience in this matter. We are doing everything we can to make it happen.
2. Some of you have expressed confusion and unrest about the way warnings and bans are being doled out. We are at work on a more formalized warning system which should make rules and consequences both easier to understand and simpler to deal with. It needs to be said that this does not mean that just because you think a ban is unfair, it will be undone. It does not mean we must cave to pressure, and does not mean you are apt to agree with every single instance of punishment you see. That said, we will make every effort to be transparent and forthright about the entire process, particularly to the party or parties to whom it pertains in the first place. No one will be punished without knowing why they merited it. That is a solemn promise you can count upon.
3. We are going to ask for something from you who read. We are human. We are not perfect. We will occasionally make judgment calls. We are volunteers who are taking time and expending resources to try and ensure that this community, as a whole, rolls along smoothly. You may not agree with everything we say or do, but we deserve and require some trust in order to do our job effectively. Lately, it has been very difficult to speak about certain situations because a guilty-till-proven-innocent mentality appears to have reigned supreme among most dissenters, ensuring that most of us are feeling attacked, assailed and otherwise victimized almost by default. This is not fair, and it is not productive, and it is, in fact, the reason why more extreme and distasteful measures were temporarily put in place to limit the damage. We had no desire to hurt the community by so doing, but recognize that our chosen actions did represent an intolerable state of affairs. We would like to apologize for this occurrence. There may be times in future where we decide to end a particular topic because it gets out of hand. This is our purview as the staff team, and we would dearly appreciate a little more courtesy when this occurs; we do not do it lightly, and we certainly do not do it because we fear your words or the erosion of what little power we do hold. We do it because we honestly believe that more harm than good is being generated by the topic, so it is, in essence, a plea for you to take a moment and realize that there may be a legitimate reason for us to have stepped in. Some of you are absolutely dauntless in your defense of right to free speech, and we respect that tenacity and ferocity both; nevertheless, we would appreciate a bit of faith when these instances do crop up...faith that we are not trying to abuse you or shut you down, and that we are trying to act in the greater good of the community. An echo chamber, by its nature, is not good for a community, and neither is loud, repetitive claims that all amount to virtually the same thing.
I think sometimes, every single one of us would do well to pause a moment, and ask ourselves whether what we're saying really and truly needs to be said. Remember that big picture I cited? Here it is again.

On a personal note, I look forward to being a productive member of this team, and to ensuring that we're only going to move upward from here. The last little while has been something of a blight on this community's record, and I want to make every effort to make whole what has been so badly fragmented. I've had the right intentions, but I recognize that I've been complicit in a lot of the damage, especially in the past couple of days. For that, you have my unconditional apology, as well as a promise to do better in the future if given leeway to do so. I can assure you that I do not simply gulp down what I have been told, and am not here to simply spout the "party line" in anyone's defense or upon anyone's behalf. I began with a much more favourable view of Dark's actions, as well as those of the team as a whole, but as more evidence came to light - evidence I had no way of knowing about and no reason to believe existed at all, I should add - I began to comprehend that there was more to this than I realized at first. I am more than capable of admitting when I am in error, and while I do not and will not utterly reverse my prior stance by any means, I perceive more of why some of you were so incensed by what you were seeing. I am divulging this particular detail so that you realize that I am not as rigid as I appear, and so you understand that I try to be objective wherever possible. I feel that I was unintentionally mislead regarding certain details - no surprise, this whole situation was a titanic tangle - and I bear no ill will toward anyone on the team for this. It's what comes of stepping in late and all.

So here we are. It is our sincere hope, as a team, that this message has begun the process of allaying some of your doubts, questions and outright misgivings. We will do better if given the chance. We, as a community and not just a team of moderators and administrators, need to do better. So I urge the community, one and all, to rise above our behaviour of late. Let's put this nasty situation to bed at long last. Let's rest with the knowledge that truth has finally prevailed, and without the added spice of further rancour or character assassination. Let's give this time to settle, and time to percolate throughout the various pockets of the community. Let's take a little time to see if the current configuration of moderators and administrators can, in fact, live up to the promises we have made. Let's take time, also, to see if the forum is willing to own and make good on some of its own complicity in these matters/.

I think we can do it. How about you?

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up +16

2018-11-04 18:30:30

Thank you Jayde for this statement. I agree with it.
I have also sent some ideas of my own to the list again, but I wish to put one more thing here publicly.
I, personally, do not know about the colour system as discussed by you in a previous topic, and I believe you made it public too I think it might have been on the changes to the forum topic.
I think for now I'd rather have a 3-strike warning system. I am also wondering, would you be interested in possibly having user's warnings all reset to 0, yes, all of them including Amine (I know he said Dark jr, but can you blaim him in the heated crisis?)
As for rules, I don't know how long this is going to take folks. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can say about the current state of the rules situation we are all reeling from the current events that have taken place, it's been exhausting for us.
Oh and before I finish this post, it's to confirm that I am happy to say that this is an open topic for people to discuss this statement.

Thumbs up +2

2018-11-04 18:50:52

Thanks jade, that was a good post. I like the idea of the 3 strikes system as well. We will see where things go from here.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-04 18:51:53 (edited by Aprone 2018-11-04 18:52:21)

Very well said Jayde.  +1 from me.  I've seen a lot of attempts to get things moving in the right direction, but this is the first post where I think it could be.  A "moving forward" post needs to be one that nearly everyone will feel compelled to rally behind it, even if they still have issues or questions or complaints, and this one just might be such a post.

Only time will tell, but I'm hopeful.

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 18:55:40

Yep, who could argue with any of that. +1.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 18:55:53

WHile I've read it, I have questions and concerns. It's often cited that people don't realize something is a

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 19:00:15

Nice post, Jade. I guess that should clear many things up... And hopefully put some foam over the raging fires of accusatory finger-pointing and so-called "back biting" going on in other posts. I know you've been kinda under stress due to the recent chaos, but I see the potential to be a good moderator in you. At this point, I'd only say best of luck and hopefully we all can get back to our gaming now! big_smile

Deep in our hearts is a capacity of infinite good or infinite evil. What path we choose is up to us.
In the end, we all have to meet the same fate-the oblivion of nonexistance, an event horizon from where not even thought can emerge...

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 19:12:19

Disclaimer: This is my opinion, but I have thought about this carefully and have been reading all the posts around these issues impartially.

For the change to the rules, the best procedure to help to reestablish trust with the users is:
1. Post the draft on the mod mailing list. Let all members of the mod team comment with input and come to a compromise that they all endorse. The final draft will have each of the mods' forum names, e-signatures if you will. This would probably take 2 to 4 days all told.
2. Post the revised draft to the forum for public scrutiny. Give some amount of time, in the ballpark of 4 to 7 days, for the community to comment/ask questions. This topic should be strictly moderated, the way a town hall meeting might be. Any off-topic posts or personal attacks should not be tolerated, and the offending posts moved to a separate topic. Rules for the discussion should be at the top of the first post so that you can't miss them. Mods should be very careful in answering the questions, and ensure that in their answers they are representing the entire mod team and not just the individual.
3. Gather a list of issues or proposed changes to the rules from the community topic, and bring that list to the mod team. Then revise the rules again and have the mods sign it. This will probably take about 4-6 days.
This way everyone gets a chance to discuss the new rules, and no one can say that they were ignored. The town hall discussion will help a lot with transparency on the part of the mods, and by carefully writing and enforcing rules for the town hall meeting, will show the community that the mods can be entrusted to enforce the rules they set up for the entire forum.

I like to sleep, Sleep is good,
This is how I do it: Lie on a nice warm cozy bed, and dream dreams about how to rule the world!
Follow @TheGreatAthlon5 on twitter for humorous facts and game updates!
If you like my posts, thumb me up!

2018-11-04 19:21:48

Thanks Jayde. Very well put and I approve. It was highly beneficial to have you as a new objective voice in the team, and you've handled your first crisis admirably. smile

Yes, I will admit to feeling more than a little bit fatalistic recently. I hope to God that we can finally put all this behind us and get the hell on.

Just myself, as usual.

2018-11-04 19:28:52

Fantastically worded post Jayde.  As for myself, there has been an awful lot to die jest over the past few weeks, most of which I was unaware off due to not being a mod back then.  I agree that a three strike rule would be good to start with, and naturally a rewrite of the rules to make them clear and concise is in order.  I look forward to help out where I can moving forward. smile

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-04 19:33:39

The town-hall-style rules review is something I had thought of and hadn't voiced yet, so thanks for bringing that up. Yes, something in that vein can be expected in future. New rules, given that they are an amendment to stuff we all agreed to already, need to be combed over very carefully, and people need to be given every chance to be heard.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 19:39:10 (edited by Mayana 2018-11-04 21:10:49)

That's a very well written post. Thank you for writing it, Jayde, and of course thank you, all of the admin team, for discussing and sharing ideas to make this post exist. You're awesome, guys. Sure, I don't agree with some of your past actions, but I've got no complaints here. smile
Could you maybe move this post to the news forum? I think more people would see it that way, since more people check that forum than Site and Forum Feedback, and it'd be displayed on the main ag.net page as well.
@JaceK, just an FYI, your post seems to have been cut off.
@KeyIsFull, your idea is also an excellent one. I think all the members would appreciate the transparency and that the admins are listening to their suggestions.

Have a nice day, Mayana.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 20:05:20 (edited by Ethin 2018-11-04 20:16:29)

I can't help but notice all the politic-speak in Jades post. That, in turn, makes me question the entire post, purely because its full of politic-speak. When you say that you guys are volunteers, for example, you write that as if you should expect us to be a bit sympathetic. Here's the thing. I don't give a damn who you are, or what you are, or whether your a volunteer moderator or whether your a moderator who's paid 100 trillion dollars per minute. I expect you to comport yourself as a moderator would. I expect you to be fair, and to only perform drastic actions when those drastic actions actually prove necessary. So far, all I have seen is a false veneer of platitudes heading our way that clearly says to me, "This is what I say publicly, but I actually mean something totally different!" So, a word of advice: drop the politicians act. We are not the senate of the united states or the house of representatives, or congress. Yes you guys are volunteers -- volunteers who are paid nothing to aid this community. That, however, does in no way give you sympathy from us. If you fuck up, you will pay for that fuck-up. And making up rules on the fly to fit the situation is not the way a moderator should comport him/herself. Honestly, Jade has done nothing in the past 48 hours to prove to me that he is in anyway trustworthy on the mod team. I may not be a mod, but that does not mean I need to trust him. Everything he has written is full of politic-speak in one way or another. He has warned people without the moderation hat on, calling them "recommendations" and expecting them to be followed -- again forgetting that, when the mod hat is not on, we are not obligated to follow anything the mods tell us to do. Yes, he is new, and I have most definitely taken into account that. That in no way however excludes him from punishment, and it seems like jade is going off scot-free, without even a slap on the wrist, and that clearly demonstrates a lack of the desire to punish one of their own within the moderator team. I honestly could care less how small the mod team is. I don't care if its one member doing all the work. If you are a moderator, and you want anything you say to actually be listened to, then you must set an example, and that means punishing yourself. In the case of Jade, he liberally took rule 8 on the rules page quite literally and decided it would be a brilliant tactic to dish out orders, and called them "recommendations", and his only reason is (as outlined in this topic) that the mod team was in a "state of emergency". Then he expected them to be followed, despite that no other mod was speaking up for him, nor was any mod backing his actions until they were practically forced to after we asked the team like 6-9 times to actually do so. And since we only had his word on the matter at that time to indicate that the rest of the mod team were backing his actions, that makes me ask the question, "Give me one really, really good reason why I should trust any of the moderation team, especially if Jade was acting on behalf of all of them?"
Furthermore, One of the mods listed SLJ as a moderator. That makes me also ask the question, "When did newsposters become moderators and obtain moderator privileges, and why was that necessary?"
So, Jade, give me -- or, really, all of us -- two really good answers to those above questions, without politic-speak and without your political views practically dripping from your post, and without that arrogant and condescending nature that every one of your posts seems to have, and maybe, just maybe, I might actually have a tiny fire of confidence that you can actually do good as a moderator. But fuck up as badly as you have within the last 48 hours, and that fire will die, and most likely never be re-lit again. In these kinds of situations, I do not give second chances. Perhaps I am being unusually cold, but nothing has been done to warm my response as of yet, particularly since Jade has violated every single rule in the moderators rulebook and the admin rulebook combined. Granted, those rulebooks don't actually exist, but they are implied things that any user would expect from you. And, OK, like I said, I get that your new. I get that you really haven't been taught all the ins and outs of being a moderator. But honestly that's know excuse. If you didn't know the ins and outs you should've never taken control of any situations purely because you didn't know what you were dealing with. That's also something I feel that needs to be improved. Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on employee training alone -- why can't we do something similar instead of leaving all the new moderators adrift? And, while they're learning, unless explicitly tasked to, they can't moderate anything until that training is over?

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +4

2018-11-04 20:18:00

Really glad to see everyone is willing to let the forum heal. I'm so glad we have 100 percent agreement on this.

2018-11-04 20:34:54

I guess we'll see what happens.

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul

2018-11-04 20:57:26

just as I was about to close down this topic, I have discovered post 13, raising some of my points as well. I didn't know that SLJ had any rank at the time, but what I did know, is that he is not a moderator. which leads me to 2 questions.
1) why did he not get a promotion, given that he is already aware of some of the insider things?
2) why do people who are not admins, and or owners even have to do with the choice of admin in question? I'm puzzled.
3) if any of us did what Jayde has, we would temporarily be banned. as post 13 said, things are now being quietly put under the pillow, for some comforting dreams.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 21:05:58

@Liam Well, 99%...
@Ethin I'm not gonna tell you what I'm about to tell you in an attempt to order you around, but as one friend to another. I think you may want to ease up on the words just a little, because as we've all learned in this topic we know that harshness isn't going to get us anywhere. All that does is get tempers flaring back up again, and in this situation that's something we can't afford to have anymore. Getting angry about things only serves to tare us apart limn from limn, which I don't want, and the moderator team doesn't want, and I know the community doesn't want that either. I know a guy, he's called Ironcross, and he gave us some very important advice.

Lets just take a step back, and wait about a month for the mods to step into their rolls a bit better. If that doesn't happen, then we can speak up again.

I'm probably paraphrasing that a little bit, but you get the picture. If the mods can't improve over the next month and we do need to speak with them again, remember what I said about not being harsh. No matter what situation, harshness only serves to bring us down. I believe this community can bring itself back again and we can be united once more. In addition, one of the key elements to bettering ourselves as a community is bettering ourselves as people, which means getting past obstacles in our every day life. This shall be demonstrated by me right now. I'm going to post this, put my pants on, and go on a little jog up and down the driveway for a little bit, then try to get something healthy to eat. Thus, I will be away from the computer for a bit. Talk to you guys later.

If anyone wants to add me on Skype, it's garrett.brown2014.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 21:12:34

Ethin, I am sorry that you find my language objectionable, but I am afraid that I do not feel that your critique, on that point at least, merits a change on my part. This is the way I speak. I endeavour to be clear and thorough in what I say. If you find it excessively wordy, political or condescending, there is little I can do for you.

Regarding your other objections...again, I am sorry that you feel this way, but yet again, there is little I can do. Most of the rest of the forum thus far, including former detractors, are at the very least willing to let things lie or to give me some rope in order to see if I will hang myself with it. I would very gently suggest that the sheer force of your stated objections may in fact be contributing to part of the problem. Yes, you have every right to object to things, and you have every right to speak those objections. But there comes a point when everything productive has been said, and your previous post did not bring any new information, evidence or viewpoints to the table. Your antagonism is understandable, perhaps, but it may be standing in the way of productive forward motion. I would like you to more deeply consider what you say before you say it. this is a suggestion from one forum user to another; we are both fighting the same fight, as it were, so I hope you take this recommendation in that spirit.

There is an old expression which I urge all readers to bear in mind. You can't please everyone. Ethin's post is proof of this. We have, at this point, done virtually everything in our power to try and right the wrongs that have been done. There comes a point where one has to say "enough is enough" and move on. Because this is that slippery slope I mentioned before. First people wanted a public stance on the Walter/Lori thing. They got it. Then they wanted the truth and the details. They got it. Now there are a vocal few still apparently calling for my head. There have been people suggesting that the entire slate should be wiped. Where, exactly, does it stop, and who precisely holds the moral superiority which grants them the right to dictate those terms? I am not a fan of moving the goalposts, and having people make more and yet more demands when we agree that the first few were reasonable and provide what this community deserves. It deserves accountability; you got it. it deserves ownership; you got that too. It deserves reform; we're working on it. And overall, it deserves to heal. I've said before, and will say again, that if you cannot stomach the healing process, at least stand aside and let the rest of us do what is necessary. Your antagonistic, inflammatory rhetoric is not restorative; it is destructive.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-04 21:22:39

@Jayde, you are twisting my words. Enough with that, would you? If you cared to fully read my post, you would discover that I am willing to give you another chance. But I do not appreciate nor do I except that you "must always speak politically". People can change. You know this. I know this. We all know this. Therefore, it would not be overly difficult for you to speak plainly without a bunch of political undertones. Everyone else is able to do it; what exempts you from that? You can at least try without immediately denying the possibility as though it were out of the question. Again, this is not the senate, the house, the congress, or a courtroom, or any other political arena; this is a forum where free and open (and non-formal) discussion occurs. Finally, you still have not answered any of my questions.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 21:36:48

Okay, let's do this. I'm going to stay civil, but let's extract some of the issues.

Ethin wrote:
So far, all I have seen is a false veneer of platitudes heading our way that clearly says to me, "This is what I say publicly, but I actually mean something totally different!" So, a word of advice: drop the politicians act.

You are implying, with this particular snip, that you do not trust me. You are actually purporting to know what I "really mean", and given that the mods have stood behind this post in both intent and composition, you are also indirectly saying it of those other mods. This is not a good start. It implies that we must use language that is palatable to you personally before you will believe us. Life doesn't work that way.

Ethin wrote:
So, Jade, give me -- or, really, all of us -- two really good answers to those above questions, without politic-speak and without your political views practically dripping from your post, and without that arrogant and condescending nature that every one of your posts seems to have, and maybe, just maybe, I might actually have a tiny fire of confidence that you can actually do good as a moderator. But fuck up as badly as you have within the last 48 hours, and that fire will die, and most likely never be re-lit again. In these kinds of situations, I do not give second chances. Perhaps I am being unusually cold, but nothing has been done to warm my response as of yet, particularly since Jade has violated every single rule in the moderators rulebook and the admin rulebook combined. Granted, those rulebooks don't actually exist, but they are implied things that any user would expect from you.

I don't really feel any further condemnation of the language I use is defensible here. You see me as overly political, I see you as overly hostile. This is what we like to call an impasse. I respect your right to think and feel as you do, but there were many better ways to bring your concerns up.

We have essentially come to you as a community with hat in hand, saying that we will be better. We are hoping that this is also true of the community at large, since there are very few of us with clean hands. This combattive response is not the way to go about that. I'm not twisting your words, Ethin; I'm asking you to take accountability for what you say, just as I must do likewise.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up +2

2018-11-04 21:54:01 (edited by Ethin 2018-11-04 22:03:29)

@20. OK. First ting:

jade wrote:

Ethin wrote:
So far, all I have seen is a false veneer of platitudes heading our way that clearly says to me, "This is what I say publicly, but I actually mean something totally different!" So, a word of advice: drop the politicians act.
You are implying, with this particular snip, that you do not trust me. You are actually purporting to know what I "really mean", and given that the mods have stood behind this post in both intent and composition, you are also indirectly saying it of those other mods. This is not a good start. It implies that we must use language that is palatable to you personally before you will believe us. Life doesn't work that way.

You are correct. This is implying that I do not trust you. After all, you haven't do anything to show me that I should trust you, have you? Oh, sure, you've written this topic, and you've given us platitudes about how you will do better. And, honestly, only time will tell that story. Considering that all I've seen from your time as a moderator is a bunch of recommendations (bordering on demands), and not actually trying to learn the lay of the land, as it were, when I imply that I know what you "really mean" I can make quite the avid guess purely off of your recent posts within the last 48 hours. Considering that you have threatened warnings and bans and made up rules on the fly just to justify most of your actions, I have no reason to trust you and every reason to generate a possible idea of what you actually mean. So, yes, life does work that way. I am not asking that you use language that is particularly comestible to me, but to everyone. Your posts are full of political undertones and meanings, and therefore to understand what your actually trying to say I must attempt to determine what you "really mean"; Hence, my comment about a veneer of false platitudes.

Jade wrote:

Ethin wrote:
So, Jade, give me -- or, really, all of us -- two really good answers to those above questions, without politic-speak and without your political views practically dripping from your post, and without that arrogant and condescending nature that every one of your posts seems to have, and maybe, just maybe, I might actually have a tiny fire of confidence that you can actually do good as a moderator. But fuck up as badly as you have within the last 48 hours, and that fire will die, and most likely never be re-lit again. In these kinds of situations, I do not give second chances. Perhaps I am being unusually cold, but nothing has been done to warm my response as of yet, particularly since Jade has violated every single rule in the moderators rulebook and the admin rulebook combined. Granted, those rulebooks don't actually exist, but they are implied things that any user would expect from you.
I don't really feel any further condemnation of the language I use is defensible here. You see me as overly political, I see you as overly hostile. This is what we like to call an impasse. I respect your right to think and feel as you do, but there were many better ways to bring your concerns up.
We have essentially come to you as a community with hat in hand, saying that we will be better. We are hoping that this is also true of the community at large, since there are very few of us with clean hands. This combattive response is not the way to go about that. I'm not twisting your words, Ethin; I'm asking you to take accountability for what you say, just as I must do likewise.

Again, your language is supercilious; you are acting as though I am an 11-year-old who does not understand the situation. Yes, this is an impasse. But any impasse can be breached, any impasse can be leaped over. And, again, you still haven't answered those two questions I asked, in the manner I requested, which is only diminishing my hope that you will also actually do so. You have "requested" that members do things for you (though you phrased them like demands); I am only doing the same to you. If you do not want to appear a hypocrite, then you'd do what I requested and how I requested, just as you wanted us, as members, to do for you. And, while I agree that this is a combative response, I have also given you rope to hang yourself with. Unlike those who may forgive you, I am not so forgiving, and am quite willing to be hostile to those in power if it is necessary to prove a point. The community will be changed, rest assured of that. However, your wording of your posts, and your actions, will determine whether you are apart of that change, and are trusted by the community to do the right thing, or whether you are not apart of it and distrusted to be in a position of authority whatsoever. So far, your actions, which do speak louder than words, have shown me at least that I cannot trust you in a position of authority because you are too quick to leap off the handle and too politically oriented, and your phrasing of almost every post you've written thus far since your promotion proves my point. You've said that I am trying to change, and I am changing; however, I'd expect the same to you. If you can change, then you can alter your writing style so that it is not so politically oriented and filled with doublespeak and political undertones.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 22:09:30

You want to know why SLJ had a vote, or why his vote counted for anything.This is because while news posters are not official mods/admin, they have still been trusted to do more than just browse the forum. As such, somebody decided their vote counte. I can't really answer beyond that point. As far as I understand, they are staff members, but nof official mods or admin. I hope someone else with knowledge greater than mine weighs in here.

And you want one very good reason to trust the mod team, here it is:
We came to you, admitted exactly what happened, and have said we would be better. This is ownership. Beyond asking us to bleed, there's not much more you can do. Okay, we screwed up, both on individual levels and as a team. We've admitted this, and have promised to be better. So your trust, such as it is, should be understandably conditional.

Now, I'm going to turn this around, since I've done you the favour of agreeing to your request:

Ethin, I need you to explain to me, either here or in private (your choice) exactly what you mean when you continually throw around the term "political speak" and such. You are demonizing my use of language because it is unpalatable to you, and are even going so far as to cast doubt on the entire team due to this use lf language. Those are some pretty weighty words to be tossing around, so I think it is high time you factually demonstrated why the language I use is detrimental and/or disingenuous.

I am not liking the confrontational direction this thread is heading, and am hoping that we will once again be able to return to worthwhile forward progress soon. I am only too happy to take ownership of my wrongdoing, but I am not particularly fond of defending my every word, phrase and punctuation mark because it is apparently giving one particular user problems. I am beginning to feel like nothing, absolutely nothing, is good enough, and let me tell you, that's an extremely toxic state of mind to induce, much less to slog through on a personal level.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-04 22:20:01 (edited by Ethin 2018-11-04 22:22:52)

@22, you want to know why political speak is bad? Its because the way your using it makes it sound like you have multiple intentions, and its impossible to actually figure out what your saying. Political speak is exactly the same as doublespeak -- language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. You write these really, really long posts, and they all use language that you'd use in a political arena or professional environment. I have never seen you post with plane old English instead of doublespeak, and was using those big words as an example of exactly what I mean. This forum is not a professional environment or workplace yet you treat it as such, and you use language that gives many meanings to your posts, instead of one clear meaning. That is exactly what a politician does, and I doubt anyone likes that. Your wording and language almost reminds me of a term called Dog-whistle politics; that is, political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. Of course, "general population" would obviously mean the forum community as a hole.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-11-04 22:28:55

22. I'm still curious why an internal staff member was not promoted instead. I guess I'm curious on how appointing new admins actually works.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-04 22:33:02

I'm still not able to trust you, sorry. Maybe time will change my mind, but I doubt so.

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul