New forum for member feedback

[Ryushikaze]

Eh, no I wasn't.

I misremembered the exact message given, but you were told that you would be banned for continuing to flame people. You were even warned that the suspension could be as long as it was necessary for you to stop doing that.

 

[Octo]

The thing is... it's not about friends or not friends. I've stood up for plenty of people who aren't my friends before - not limited to Username, L, & Misty, to name a few. If I have more friends, I have more backup? No, it's about making sure the right thing is being done for ALL members, not just friends.

As an example, if a member who wasn't my friend had their thread deleted, and I felt it was unfair, I'd most certainly have something to say about it, and would want to know about it. It's how we exist as a community that is the focus.

Well that too, and I would do the same. I just meant I know I could rely on people who were friends.

And then that gives you and your group of friends the stigma of being dramawhores and stirrers of shit. XD

Maybe so, but the point is that mods would be making a rod for their own back if they did that.

From my point of view its clear that theres a lot of history influencing things here, both members and mods are being judged on past behaviours and well.....it aint helpful to anyone. The best thing would be if we could wipe the slate clean but I dunno if thats going to happen.

Idk. From what I've observed in my time here, particularly the last...ehhhh, maybe 15 months?...my faith in the moderation team is at an all-time low, tbh. I mean, to further the point - here we are having this discussion, and, what, 4 people on staff have poked their noses in with something to say (Aaron, Road, Ryu, Tennyo)? Wait, Adri makes five. Meanwhile, the other *three* admins and uh...(Force, Hito...) two (?) smods have bupkis to share on the subject? That's half the team, and MOST of it is all Ryu and Road doing the talking. =/

I too would like input from all of the mods, just to see where they stand on the issue.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

L, your ban was always covered under the rules. The changes to the rules were clarifications on how we had been operating for quite some time, not notable changes to them. In your case, it was especially irrelevant since you were told you were going to face a suspension at your next offense, period.

Also, Aaron didn't change the rules. He was just the person who edited the post. All of the admins and moderators agreed that it was necessary to make clarifications to the rules.

Also, Adri, making reports and infractions publicly visible completely goes against the idea of those things being even remotely confidential.

Teef, if the current system isn't working and this isn't helping, what would? Seriously, toss us ideas.

Just to go back to this.

Firstly I would like to see said proof stating that I was going to be banned at my next offence.

As far as reality goes what had ACTUALLY occured was that my warning level was one point away from me receiving a ban. This then expired and I went down to 2 points on the infraction level.
I then did in fact flame another member and was banned outright.

I was told that the rules included that my banning was justified because past actions would be taken into consideration.

However when I came back AFTER A MONTH I pointed out that the rules actually stated that a member could be banned outright if they did the same thing repeatedly over a short period of time.

WHICH I DID NOT.

Aaron then changed the rules to CLARIFY them, which also included rewording it to cover the massive gap in the fact that I wasn't covered under the previous wording.

MEANING: I was banned and only after I argued the wording it was changed to cover it.

So yeah, im gonna call BS on the "You were told your next infraction would involve a ban"

 

[Tifabelle]

Well that too, and I would do the same. I just meant I know I could rely on people who were friends.

idk, I'd tell my friends too if I thought they were being dumb

Maybe so, but the point is that mods would be making a rod for their own back if they did that.

There was just mention not too long ago that used the term "cliquey". And I think having friends back you is both positive and negative. Positive for obvious reasons, and negative because when it is friends supporting you, your concern is dismissed quite easily as shit-stirring or similar.

From my point of view its clear that theres a lot of history influencing things here, both members and mods are being judged on past behaviours and well.....it aint helpful to anyone. The best thing would be if we could wipe the slate clean but I dunno if thats going to happen.

Mods are being judged on current behavior. Which is also past behavior. Because it hasn't changed, and concerns fell on deaf ears.

How would you wipe the slate clean? (idk if that comes off as rude, but I don't mean it to be. It's a legitimate question if you have a suggestion to do that)

(also road, would it be possible to make a separate thread about voting in new staff. I don't want that to get mixed up or lost in this one)

 

[Ryushikaze]

Just to go back to this.

Firstly I would like to see said proof stating that I was going to be banned at my next offence.

As far as reality goes what had ACTUALLY occured was that my warning level was one point away from me receiving a ban. This then expired and I went down to 2 points on the infraction level.
I then did in fact flame another member and was banned outright.

I was told that the rules included that my banning was justified because past actions would be taken into consideration.

However when I came back AFTER A MONTH I pointed out that the rules actually stated that a member could be banned outright if they did the same thing repeatedly over a short period of time.

WHICH I DID NOT.

They also say you can be banned at the discretion of the moderator staff.

Aaron then changed the rules to CLARIFY them, which also included rewording it to cover the massive gap in the fact that I wasn't covered under the previous wording.

MEANING: I was banned and only after I argued the wording it was changed to cover it.

So yeah, im gonna call BS on the "You were told your next infraction would involve a ban"

You were told that you would be suspended if you continued to flame people. You continued to flame people. You were suspended.

I'll quote precisely what you were told. "If you refuse to play nice we will ban you from the board for as long as it takes until you cooperate."

Also worth noting, this was not your first suspension for the same reason. Even if we only take 'will be taken to the next stage' you'd reached that stage before.

And no, the rules were not changed to 'cover' your ban. Your ban was covered by the fact that we CAN sometimes ban people for outright disruptive behavior, especially when they show a consistent history of such, like being banned for it previously.

 

[Octo]

idk, I'd tell my friends too if I thought they were being dumb

That goes without saying for me too

There was just mention not too long ago that used the term "cliquey". And I think having friends back you is both positive and negative. Positive for obvious reasons, and negative because when it is friends supporting you, your concern is dismissed quite easily as shit-stirring or similar.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess the best that can be done is if everyone does their best to stay cool, I think its when things get heated and then it looks like shitstirring.

Mods are being judged on current behavior. Which is also past behavior. Because it hasn't changed, and concerns fell on deaf ears.

This is something I don't really have much experience of so I'll have to take your word for it.

How would you wipe the slate clean? (idk if that comes off as rude, but I don't mean it to be. It's a legitimate question if you have a suggestion to do that)

No it's not rude. I honestly don't know. I guess it's down to individuals to draw a line under past history, and although sometimes its inevitable that history gets brought up in these discussions its probably best if everyone involved in that discussion does their best to be as cool and non-confrontational as possible. As soon as people start getting agressive then people get defensive.

I guess I'm an idealist

 

[Joker]

I too would like input from all of the mods, just to see where they stand on the issue.

I'm going to allow myself to be a little bitter here: fat chance of that happening. During both - BOTH - of the staff critique periods of drama (three months on the dot, now, lol?), I asked to hear what staff thought about everything that had been said and had happened. MULTIPLE TIMES, I asked for this. I asked and got nothing. One or two people posting that they'll "take things to heart" isn't what we need here. Tennyo gained respect from me for posting what, to many people, seemed like a rude and incredibly bitchy post because it was the first time I'd seen her drop the curtain of nice that she seems to shroud herself in and voiced her opinion - her actual opinion, all of it, and without sugar-coating a damn thing.

But nobody else did that, especially the people that the memberbase seemed to have issues with.

So I'm not going to hold my breath here.

/bitter

also, that's sort of what causes the problem, Octo. Making a rod for their own backs simply harbors and fosters resentment for that group of members, and that gets them labeled as being biased against thus and such moderator and so forth

 

[Cookie Monster]

(also road, would it be possible to make a separate thread about voting in new staff. I don't want that to get mixed up or lost in this one)

Sorted:

http://thelifestream.net/forums/showthread.php?p=448318#post448318

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

They also say you can be banned at the discretion of the moderator staff.

Which invalidates the entire need for the rule/infraction system.

You were told that you would be suspended if you continued to flame people. You continued to flame people. You were suspended.

I'll quote precisely what you were told. "If you refuse to play nice we will ban you from the board for as long as it takes until you cooperate."

Also worth noting, this was not your first suspension for the same reason. Even if we only take 'will be taken to the next stage' you'd reached that stage before.

And no, the rules were not changed to 'cover' your ban. Your ban was covered by the fact that we CAN sometimes ban people for outright disruptive behavior, especially when they show a consistent history of such, like being banned for it previously.

Lmao, I was told something prior to being banned months prior to that and that holds weight over the rest of my time on this forum?

Wow, I seriously CANNOT wait until you & Aaron slip up and start acting like you did a while back just so I can quote this XD

 

[Cookie Monster]

it was the first time I'd seen her drop the curtain of nice that she seems to shroud herself in and voiced her opinion - her actual opinion, all of it, and without sugar-coating a damn thing.

Yeah, that curtain is long gone now. I mentioned it in staff recently. I told her it's been like watching Daenerys turn into a Khaleesi.

 

[Joker]

And no, the rules were not changed to 'cover' your ban. Your ban was covered by the fact that we CAN sometimes ban people for outright disruptive behavior, especially when they show a consistent history of such, like being banned for it previously.

Okay, but by this logic, Misty/Kobato would have been banned the first time there was a substantiated complaint of harassment against her - or the second at the VERY least. Harassment, to me, seems more serious than flaming someone, regardless of how much history you have of doing that. As you put it, it is more "outright disruptive" than a flame - especially one leveled at the harassing member. I remember when that Nikkolas guy was perving all over Alise, he got banned WITHIN AN HOUR, and Alex got banned for flaming the guy during the whole thing for being a creep (and while I absolutely despised Alex at the time, it was the first thing he did that garnered some respect from me, and here we are). But now it's somehow okay to flame banned members, which doesn't really make sense to me, but...whatever.

This is something I don't really have much experience of so I'll have to take your word for it.

With all due respect, from what I've seen, you've never had any issues with staff, so I don't expect that you would.

 

[Joker]

Yeah, that curtain is long gone now. I mentioned it in staff recently. I told her it's been like watching Daenerys turn into a Khaleesi.

your reference is lost on me because I don't GoT so

I know nothing Jon Snow

 

[Ryushikaze]

Which invalidates the entire need for the rule/infraction system.

No it doesn't. Rules and the infractions are a progressive warning system. But often times there are incidents or members that go beyond the scope of the system.

Lmao, I was told something prior to being banned months prior to that and that holds weight over the rest of my time on this forum?

Wow, I seriously CANNOT wait until you & Aaron slip up and start acting like you did a while back just so I can quote this XD

Speaking of your rest of the time on the forum, you hold more infractions than anyone else on the forum has. That includes people we have permabanned. Most of these are for flaming people.
You were banned on that occasion because you were flaming a person almost no one on the forum seemed to like, and yet it was universally found that you were crossing a line.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

No it doesn't. Rules and the infractions are a progressive warning system. But often times there are incidents or members that go beyond the scope of the system.

Soooo back to my point that I had two points then was banned.
Logic.....where?

Speaking of your rest of the time on the forum, you hold more infractions than anyone else on the forum has. That includes people we have permabanned. Most of these are for flaming people.
You were banned on that occasion because you were flaming a person almost no one on the forum seemed to like, and yet it was universally found that you were crossing a line.

I was banned for flaming a member who was permabanned.
Yeeeeeahhhh

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Also thanks to Keeno for reminding me about this.

@Road:

You asked about incidents where staff deleted/removed shit that members posted in order to save face.

How about when the server went down in the midst of all the ryu bs and everyone was on ffof?

Aaron posted his true feelings in regards to not giving a shit what the memberbase of the forum thought on things. I then quoted him word for word and put it in my sig on ffof with the intention of posting it here when the site came back up.
So what happened?
The site went back up and the comments he posted and my signature were both deleted so that Aaron could come back onto this place and deny he ever said it.

That count?

 

[Madame Mayor]

Okay so.

I like the idea of allowing members to speak with multiple members of staff directly and privately about issues that concern them.

I understand that a private section of staff may be needed for sensitive situations, such as bullying of one member to another.



HOWEVER

I think that stuff doesn't need to be private the majority of the time. I think that staff can keep a private section but that they need to use it only when necessary. If it's a reported post, and there's nothing sensitive that needs to be discussed, then talk among us about the situation. I don't even mind if it's posts after a thread has been closed so member posts don't clog up staff discussion (or temp close threads for staff discussion and re-open when a decision has been made?). OR, that staff decide which staff threads are viewable or not based on the content. Like, they still have threads only they are allowed to post in, but are visible to everyone. Does this make sense? Cause I hope it does.

Basically the tldr version is that staff section should be visible, just not postable in, unless it's a sensitive matter in which privacy is necessary for a portion of the discussion. This will make the member base feel like there aren't as many decisions being made behind closed doors, which is the common complaint right now.

If you make a decision, we just want to see the thought process and the reasons brought up as to why.

 

[Octo]

Basically the tldr version is that staff section should be visible, just not postable in, unless it's a sensitive matter in which privacy is necessary for a portion of the discussion. This will make the member base feel like there aren't as many decisions being made behind closed doors, which is the common complaint right now.

If you make a decision, we just want to see the thought process and the reasons brought up as to why.

This seems like a happy comprimise

 

[Ⓐaron]

Soooo back to my point that I had two points then was banned.
Logic.....where?

Logic is in the fact that you flamed repeatedly during a short period of time and were explicitly told during this time period that if you continued flaming you would be banned.

I was banned for flaming a member who was permabanned.
Yeeeeeahhhh

Kobato was not permabanned.

You asked about incidents where staff deleted/removed shit that members posted in order to save face.

How about when the server went down in the midst of all the ryu bs and everyone was on ffof?

Aaron posted his true feelings in regards to not giving a shit what the memberbase of the forum thought on things. I then quoted him word for word and put it in my sig on ffof with the intention of posting it here when the site came back up.
So what happened?
The site went back up and the comments he posted and my signature were both deleted so that Aaron could come back onto this place and deny he ever said it.

That count?

This happened on FFOF, so first of all it is not relevant to TLS. Secondly, my comments are in fact still there. I believe the entire thread may have been moved out of public view for about twelve hours, but it is visible once again. The context of the discussion should reveal that I was arguing that members should not get a say into how specific warnings and infractions are handled. Your signature quoted me as though I was referring to how all staff business is conducted. This was a flat-out misrepresentation, so Yop removed it.

Okay, but by this logic, Misty/Kobato would have been banned the first time there was a substantiated complaint of harassment against her - or the second at the VERY least. Harassment, to me, seems more serious than flaming someone, regardless of how much history you have of doing that. As you put it, it is more "outright disruptive" than a flame - especially one leveled at the harassing member. I remember when that Nikkolas guy was perving all over Alise, he got banned WITHIN AN HOUR, and Alex got banned for flaming the guy during the whole thing for being a creep (and while I absolutely despised Alex at the time, it was the first thing he did that garnered some respect from me, and here we are). But now it's somehow okay to flame banned members, which doesn't really make sense to me, but...whatever.

The only reason Kobato was not permabanned on the second offence was that staff felt that the situation was too ambiguous to merit a permaban without warning. If memory serves, she was told in this case that if she did it again, she would be banned, exactly as Scott was. The difference is that Scott persisted in the behaviour that got him banned, whereas Kobato disappeared from the forum entirely.

I'm going to allow myself to be a little bitter here: fat chance of that happening. During both - BOTH - of the staff critique periods of drama (three months on the dot, now, lol?), I asked to hear what staff thought about everything that had been said and had happened. MULTIPLE TIMES, I asked for this. I asked and got nothing. One or two people posting that they'll "take things to heart" isn't what we need here. Tennyo gained respect from me for posting what, to many people, seemed like a rude and incredibly bitchy post because it was the first time I'd seen her drop the curtain of nice that she seems to shroud herself in and voiced her opinion - her actual opinion, all of it, and without sugar-coating a damn thing.

By and large I have been trying to stay out of forum drama because my mental state is not well-suited to handling things diplomatically right now, as my last few attempts at getting involved have no doubt clearly demonstrated. My mental state had actually gotten worse since then about a week ago; it has improved slightly since then, but it is still nowhere near optimal. Most of what I would like to say has been stated already by others well enough that I do not feel it necessary to repeat them.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

This happened on FFOF, so first of all it is not relevant to TLS. Secondly, my comments are in fact still there. I believe the entire thread may have been moved out of public view for about twelve hours, but it is visible once again. The context of the discussion should reveal that I was arguing that members should not get a say into how specific warnings and infractions are handled. Your signature quoted me as though I was referring to how all staff business is conducted. This was a flat-out misrepresentation, so Yop removed it.

How exactly does quoting your entire post constitute as me referring to how ALL STAFF business is conducted?

You posted.
I copied it.

Where exactly is the part here where I change words in it to make you appear worse than you really are?

 

[Ⓐaron]

How exactly does quoting your entire post constitute as me referring to how ALL STAFF business is conducted?

You posted.
I copied it.

Where exactly is the part here where I change words in it to make you appear worse than you really are?

When you said "Aaron on how to run a forum" in the quote header. I wasn't talking about "how to run a forum". I was talking about "how to deal with member infractions".

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

You posted (if memory serves) that you didn't give a flying fuck about what the memberbase of the forum said.

I fail to see how anyone can take this any other way?

 

[Ⓐaron]

We had been arguing for several posts about how to deal with member infractions. I thought it would be obvious that the subject was still member infractions, especially since the post you were responding to said this:

The personal opinions of non-staff members are completely irrelevant to our determination of whether members are breaking the rules.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Errrrm no.
You were arguing your side, a few others were arguing theirs.
You posted you couldn't give a shit what others thought and threw the rattle out the pram.

Not alot of room for misinterpretation.

 

[Joker]

The only reason Kobato was not permabanned on the second offence was that staff felt that the situation was too ambiguous to merit a permaban without warning. If memory serves, she was told in this case that if she did it again, she would be banned, exactly as Scott was. The difference is that Scott persisted in the behaviour that got him banned, whereas Kobato disappeared from the forum entirely.

By and large I have been trying to stay out of forum drama because my mental state is not well-suited to handling things diplomatically right now, as my last few attempts at getting involved have no doubt clearly demonstrated. My mental state had actually gotten worse since then about a week ago; it has improved slightly since then, but it is still nowhere near optimal. Most of what I would like to say has been stated already by others well enough that I do not feel it necessary to repeat them.

My point is more that this happened before and was mentioned to staff - that constitutes enough of a history for this sort of thing, imo. A second time for something as serious as harassment would, in theory, be dealt with more seriously than some guy flaming again, even if it's the harasser.

And I also think that if you're trying to stay out of forum drama, you're definitely in the wrong thread and talking to the wrong person (Scott) in order to do it. (and probably the staff section, where dealing with all of this stuff takes place) Take a break from the forum, come back when you're capable of dealing, or, pardon the expression, nut up and be the admin TLS deserves. Nobody is saying that having rl shit to deal with isn't an issue, but as was said at some point in the past, being on staff is not a paid position - it's volunteer work, and I would still expect the same level of commitment to something that someone volunteers to do of their own volition. Same with Yop, really - stop not being arsed and work with your subjects, O [insert Cthulhu reference here and idk if I even spelled it right].

 

[Ⓐaron]

Errrrm no.
You were arguing your side, a few others were arguing theirs.
You posted you couldn't give a shit what others thought and threw the rattle out the pram.

Not alot of room for misinterpretation.

Uh no, the fact that I spent most of the post talking about the idea of "the member base hav[ing] the authority to tell each other how to behave" should make it plain that I was still referring to infractions.