If you think that was the only reason he was appointed then you have missed the point.

Okay.

Because that's based entirely on popularity, and if the only members who can be staff are those that are popular and well known to others, then that just makes the position a glorified popularity puppet position. It doesn't matter how long the member's been here or how popular they are. If you can't accept and respect enforcement of the forum's rules, regardless of who the person is in the position to respectfully and fairly shepherd and ensure compliance with said rules, then there's a problem. A police officer fresh out of the academy and new to a precinct where they've never lived before is to at least be acknowledged and respected in the position they're in because they're fulfilling their duty, regardless of how green they are.

Everyone who knows him, maybe. Meanwhile there are plenty of people who've been here since the start of the forum or shortly thereafter who don't know him. That's the issue. The only time I've seen him post outside this thread was the V for Vendetta thread, and to be quite honest, his first couple of posts weren't the best first impression. Though he improved after that.

Yeah, they could have done worse. They could have staffed Vendel. But let's face it, staffing a relative unknown is still a pretty bad decision no matter how nice, level-headed, and Japanese-knowing a member is.

As far as I'm concerned, they may as well have staffed Vendel. At least then no one would have asked questions and they (the staff) could've gone on with their fingers blissfully up their asses.

Or maybe you just haven't expressed the point. You explicitly said that he was staffed because he was the one candidate who could fulfil all of the traits Schala managed. The only trait that distinguishes Tres from other individuals mentioned in this thread is his knowledge of Japanese, therefore simple deductive reasoning fills in the rest.

No, it really isn't. Rapport and popularity are two completely different things. Rapport just means a person gets along with everyone. Which a person who's completely unknown can't do.

You guys aren't a police force, and the fact that you're taking yourselves so seriously as to think your rules honestly deserve the same respect as the law explains a large part of what's wrong with this place. This is a message board. That's all.

You I love you but..... RAGE. :rage: We've all said we like Tres JUST FINE! -rips hair out-

... I can pretty much guarantee I would have asked questions if Vendel had been modded. Namely, "What are you fucking smoking?"

Lol I mean everyone as in... well EVERYONE. I'm not saying anyone doesn't like him. I mean I was under the impression he was totally famous. So this surprised me.

No, you're basically asking, "why don't you agree with me?" Because, I don't. For one, there's no entitlement check here. Number two, our experiences with SoS and how we've known him as staff, is what had us base our judgment in appointing him here. What part of that do you not understand? Way to go at assuming he just walked in here, and we appointed him mod cause of his Japanese skills. The fact we wanted someone new to the staff with fresh ideas, a positive attitude, and experience doesn't seem to be sticking here.


Umm, that is blatantly false. We've had numerous arguments between other staff members on various opinions and shit on policy. Road, MOG, Yop, and others have gotten into heated debates on how we've done things.

I would've chalked it up to the staff just being the staff, really.

No, I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

I never said there should be. I simply said a staff member should already be well known to the member base.

I'm sorry, but that's the only trait you've mentioned that distinguishes him from other candidates.

Celes, Tennyo, and Ninira all have fresh ideas, a positive attitude, and experience. So you still haven't answered what distinguishes Tres from the other candidates mentioned.

Yes but none of them had started criticising the staff before they were appointed to it, so you haven't actually countered my point.

If it was just about having a mod who knew Japanese, I could find a friend of mine who knows Japanese, have them register, appoint them mod, and be done with it. I'm sorry, but no. Him knowing Japanese isn't even the point. We're looking at the whole picture, and I'm sorry, but you keep coming back to other members here, when that's irrelevant. No one's entitled. If we want someone with those qualifications, who we've known before to be a positive, level headed and mature member, who also is fresh to the community in terms of ideas and experience, we're gonna go with who we see as exemplifying those traits.

He can if people give him a chance, and he presents himself in a courteous, kind, and professional manner, all of which he's shown himself capable of doing, and is doing.

You took a simple analogy and blew it out of proportion....

No we don't think of ourselves as a police force. We don't have a fucking subforum jail we throw you in to post in to state your case and justify your membership here. But the fact is, is that we are in place to enforce the forum rules here. Which police officers in a simliar vein...enforce the rules of society. Not that big of a stretch. Way to go at assuming an unwarranted sense of authority and importance for our positions here.

There were no staff before we were appointed, dude. We were not only the first Staffers, but the very first members as well!

That... doesn't really counter my point dude. Staff have never appointed someone with a history of dissenting with their decisions.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm making a summation of what I feel our disagreement is.

I disagree to a point, here. Tres isn't a faceless automaton here, and he's just as qualified as anyone else here and will be known as he acts as a member here. There is no reason at all they can't get to know him now.

The fact he's an individual several staffers are familiar with, accept, and feel confidence in, doesn't distinguish him at all?

Fresh as in, he hasn't been apart of this particular forum and we'd like someone new to add to our bunch as well. That's not the same thing.

So what? The fact we have several members on staff with differing viewpoints and opinions isn't lost at all because of that. You're tying unrelated points together now.

Liek me, there's just no way man! :monster:

There's a moral here, boys and girls. If the staff like you, you can be a mod.

That's irrelevant, because again, that doesn't negate the fact that staff are not a bunch of "yes men" in the least. Case in point, Road's hesitation of appointing the guy in the first place.

Purely due to Road having a brain. And knowing how this would be received.

Aaron, IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU, I said you were taking my facetiousness too seriously, and then provided examples of things that would be taken as blatant flames ELSEWHERE. I'm not saying that ARE flames or that I think they're goddamn terrible, except for Phobos' accusation of fellatio on Tres' part to get his position, and comments of the sort should be avoided in the future.

My POINT, was that elsewhere, criticizing staff is often bannable offense, and for all your complaints about how little we do and how hypocritical we all are and nonsense, we are pretty much live and let live. And people complain about that.
And then we do something, and people complain about that.
And it's always the same set of people. But at least we are trying to listen and explain ourselves, even if some people don't want to listen.

And you haven't given a single reason as to why he exemplifies those traits better than other people who also have rapport with the members already.

At this point he's doing a much better job than the rest of the staff, I'll say that much. But then again, I can't say that would be particularly difficult. It still doesn't make his selection make any more sense.

Maybe if you don't want people to read an unwarranted sense of importance for your positions into your words, you shouldn't use such a ridiculous analogy.

Good job at being insulting again in what's trying to stay a civilized and mature debate. Thank you.

It's not irrelevant, because I never accused staff of being a bunch of "yes men." Way to make a straw man argument though.

Yes, this is all about the insults. Because I'm just oh so insulting.

Because that again comes to our decision and choice in judgment that was bred from our experience, interaction, and knowledge of this individual, coupled with our desire to have a fresh face on staff.

You know, I'm already past being insulted or whatever by such subtle, and sarcastic jabs at our expense, but I will say that I'm glad you feel that way, and it is for that reason we felt a fresh face on staff would be a good reason. Because at least he would then be fresh and people would be able to see him for himself, and not just as "another staff person." So I guess that's a good start.

Okay. Because one can truly gleam and make a completely valid reading of one's sense of importance from a mere internet analogy, especially isolated from their points at hand. Right.

Well it's a poor summation and I find it insulting.

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying you could have avoided the whole shit storm by appointing someone the members already knew, and it wouldn't have come across as such a slap in the face to people who've been model members for the majority of this forum's existence.

Considering that all the other candidates mentioned in this thread presumably excluding myself should fit those criteria as well, no it doesn't distinguish him.



Well you can see how that worked out.

So what? The fact we have several members on staff with differing viewpoints and opinions isn't lost at all because of that. You're tying unrelated points together now.[/QUOTE]I never said you didn't have differing viewpoints on staff. I said you didn't want to add more differing viewpoints to staff. Apparently the nuance in this argument escapes you.

Then what is your point, Aaron? If you mentioning that we haven't added people who've had a dissenting viewpoint to staff, isn't an accusation that we only accept those who follow our own line of thought and think of us favorly, so to minimize dissent...what's the point you're making? Please say it clearly.

Perhaps you fail at making your facetiousness obvious then. Several other people I was speaking to didn't see it either.

Good, then I'm at a loss as to why you directly called them "blatant flames" in the first place, rather than saying "would be seen as blatant flames in other, stricter communities." A little bit of clarity goes a long way.

I'm not seeing how a joking insinuation that someone may or may not have committed fellatio is an insult. It's a joke.

I haven't disagreed with any of that. In fact, I explicitly said exactly the same thing you said in another post. So perhaps you failed to discern my point.

Well I think it's easily solved. If you want me to make a serious diagnosis of where this place has gone I'll do it tomorrow, assuming I don't throw up in the morning again or something.

You find me stating the obvious that we disagree...insulting?

And we would've sacrificed our appointment of who we felt was more qualified and capable of doing the job.

And it's only a slap in the face to those who feel unwarranted entitlement to a position they were never promised in the first place.

Well that's your opinion, and I and the rest of us staff have to respectfully disagree.



That's an assessment of yours that isn't true, but okay. Thanks for the clarification.

The last time I was joking and said this I got into one of the biggest shitstorms of my entire stay here. I'm beginning to think that some of the people here are pretty selective over the stuff that gets their panties in knots.

Aaron, at this point, I have to say, it really feels like you're misunderstanding things on purpose just so you can get up in arms. That's the only way your misunderstanding and overblowing of a very simple analogy makes sense.

You claimed I said staff are "yes men." I never claimed that. I did say you want to minimise dissent. Having trouble keeping your own words straight? It's okay, you're posting pretty quickly so it's understandable.

To be fair I think the point in that situation was that you are a mod and shouldn't be making such comments.

MODS CAN'T HAVE FUN

EXCUSE ME I HAVE TO GET BACK TO MY GRAY CUBICLE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH AND HAVE A FEW SIPS OF MY INNER PARTY COFFEE

late poast is late XP, anywayz, congrats on becoming Mod, Tres. Hope it goes well and we see you more often, um... Modding lolz. Wow i pick the wrong times to poast XD.

~ SoS

I find you reducing my argument to a simple difference of opinion and disregarding the substance of that argument insulting.

And you still haven't exactly explained why he's more qualified and capable of doing the job. Apparently, it comes down to him knowing Japanese and having been a member of this forum for less than a month. And it's the latter qualification that got you into such trouble.

I'm sorry but I think people who have been a member of this forum since the beginning of its history can be perfectly justified to feel more entitled to a position than someone who has less than 150 posts.

You've yet to provide any justification for any disagreement though.

Fine, then prove me wrong. Appoint someone to staff who's been a vocal critic of yours.

Hence my clarification in the second post.

Because I was BEING FACETIOUS. It ruins the funny when I am trying to be facetious.

A joke. That tres gave head to get his position.
I see the humor less than you see the facetiousness.

That's not my point, though. My point, is that we're laid back, and you have a problem with that, but ALSO, that if we take any action, you ALSO have a problem with that. It's a lose lose scenario.

You do that.

There's a difference between implying someone might have sucked cock, and directly ordering them to suck cock after they have given you constructive criticism.

As I said, apparently it failed to get through. I apologise, but as I said, I was hardly alone in failing to read your facetiousness.

Do you think that Phobos literally meant to imply that Tres fellated the staff members? Because that's what I'm reading here.

I have a problem with the inconsistency. But you're wrong, I don't have a problem with you being laid back. I wish you were more laid back to be honest. Slightly risqué comments don't need to get form letter warnings.

k

Of course you can joke, anyone can, but you should make it clear you're joking. IIRC there was a huge argument as to whether or not you were joking. I'm not saying the shit storm was justified, in fact it was one of the stranger ones that have come up here, but wasn't the point that people didn't know you were joking?

It's not an insult. I don't find you stupid, or anything negative. But you seem to feel personally invested and quite angry over how we chose him for our reasons, versus another member, for your reasons. Not really a reduction, but an observation. But that's fine, it wasn't meant to be insulting at all.

He's more qualified because he fulfills our requirements that we wanted and were looking for, and we were the ones making the choice. And the fact he's a new face in the community is essentially what we want. I'm sorry that people didn't like that, but again, this isn't a popularity contest, and we didn't have any one else promised the position or entitled to it.

Well again, that's where I disagree. I don't think that necessarily makes one more entitled than anyone else who's good for the job. We're not about just adding the olde ones to staff. It takes a good balance of old and new members to offer ideas and perspectives. That goes for lots of things in real life too.

Justification? Isn't a matter of perspective enough?

We added someone new so that they could give us fresh ideas, critiques, and opinions on how things are done here, and what can and shouldn't be done. If we have an open position again or we start looking to expand, we'll definitely give all members an equal look to see who's qualified. But umm, at this very moment we're not going to add someone to staff now, just to win an argument with you here. That'd be a bit silly.

In the words of Dacon, it is a metaphor for brown nosing.
And obviously, he was totally there sucking each one of them off. Maybe that's why they don't see the metaphor.

Oh sweet Lord you have to be kidding me. I forgot jokes can't come in the form of 'direct orders.' They're mutually exclusive.

You know what, this is how I feel about the whole thing. I've said my piece about Tres, but here's the thing in general.

If you don't like it here, how its run, or how the Staff does things to the point of finding fault in almost everything that's done, you are always welcome to leave. I just don't get it. I can understand say, Celes having a problem with something here or there (because she doesn't constantly complain), but members like Aaron find fault in almost everything that goes on here.

Why do you stay here? Honestly if I were in you guys shoes (and I have been, in other communities) I would have left, regardless of how much I 'said I liked this place' a long time ago. I just don't understand. Don't you have anything else better to do than to stick around a place where you have major, constant fundamental issues with how its run, the Staff, and the community and tap tap tap away back and forth on your keyboard into the night (fruitlessly)? A job? School? Friends? A significant other? A dog?

I'm sorry but when I see people compare themselves to cops, alarm bells go off. A long term member who gets a warning from a member with a join date of September 2009 is going to brush it off a lot more than they would from someone with a join date of January 2009. I fail to see how that's not a serious drawback to the selection.

The problem here was that no one knew you were joking. The fact that you said it as a direct response to a very serious piece of constructive criticism did not help your case in the slightest.

Cry moar.

I stay because, apart from certain staff members, I like most of the people here. I've known a lot of the people who post here for four years or more.

I honestly didn't think my simple analogy to cops enforcing societal rules would be that much of a problem. So sorry if it came off that way. It was just the first thing to come to mind since I saw a cop earlier today while driving home, writing a guy a ticket.

Anyways, a member shouldn't even do that, unless the staffer was acting like a complete bastard, or warning them out of a personal vendetta.

Demanding money from me and 'criticizing' me when I obviously don't deliver is constructive criticism. Okay!

You don't act like it. You bitch and whine about the community, the Staff, 'how this place is run' 'the state of things' here constantly and consistently. It's not like you have the occasional issue about things or whatever. You complain and argue for the sake of complaining and arguing. Why don't you pack your e-bags and leave? And no, I'm not saying (or demanding, in any way) this as a mod. I'd tell you this even if I just joined this place or if I was a regular member. I don't understand this. Don't you have anything better to do, Aaron? Don't you?

Just to defend myself here...

My point was that I generally do hold mods to a higher standard myself. So if a mod says "Suck my dick" vs a member saying "suck my cock." (AND BEFORE ANYONE SAYS ANYTHING YES I KNOW THOSE WERE NOT THE EXACT QUOTES) I can see why people would be more upset about the mod saying it, joking or not. But I was NOT attacking Mog here, I mean come on I've said in the past I'm sick of all the persecution of Mog.

That's all I was trying to say, sorry if I offended anyone.

Do you guys have better things to do? Is that why you're skirting the issue, giving vague answers, and just generally avoiding the problem?

Dacon left over this, so yeah, I feel pretty invested. I mean, if you guys want to keep making yourselves seem like more and more of a joke, then go right ahead.

So in other words, you don't really care what the members want and you're going to do things your way. Glad we've got that out of the way.

I really fail to see how someone who just joined a message board is going to be as valuable a source of input as someone who's been a member of a board since or near its inception and has had time to get well acquainted with the atmosphere of a place and its strengths and weaknesses. Anyone you add to staff is by nature going to be a fresh voice to staff.

It helps me understand why you thought it was a good idea, but it doesn't convince me any further that it actually was a good idea.

I fail to see how any of these things are things that veteran members couldn't do, indeed, I fail to see how veteran members couldn't do any of them better, since they'll already know the place fairly intimately and have a good idea of what needs to change.

You don't have to add someone right now. But the next person you appoint should be someone with a history of criticizing staff decisions, if you really want to avoid looking a bit odd here.

Well great, but it's not our jobs to do things up to par with the 'Aaron Standard'. What do you expect here? 'YES AARON WE ARE OBLIGATED TO CONVINCE YOU THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA'

fair enough

This seems to me a very dangerous assumption to make, especially for a forum whose only significant periods of activity seem to come in times of drama.

Again, hence why I was more explicit about what I meant in my reply.

No, but he in vulgar terms expressed the idea that Tres only got the position because of untoward favors performed, to say nothing of calling all the responses of 'all staff' 'condescending bullshit'.

And normally, I agree. But this isn't about it being risque. This is an accusation, made in jest or no, that was made in incredibly poor judgement. Making off color jokes is one thing. Making off color jokes about someone he doesn't even know is something else entirely.

Hence his warning that he should not make such comments ABOUT PEOPLE in the future unless he knows them well enough so that they it's a joke.

No, I criticised you for making a promise that you weren't willing to follow through with when it was obvious members already had issues with you. The fact that the original promise was obviously a joke was beside the point.

Where have I done this?

Or maybe I complain and argue because I have this most likely delusional fantasy that maybe, one day people will finally come around to the side of logic.

At the moment I find this more entertaining than anything else I could be doing on a Sunday night, sorry.

Aaron hasn't even come close to saying that this place is all about pleasing him and making him happy. He's also not saying that you all need to bow down and present your ideas to him first.

It isn't an accusation. Quit putting words where they don't belong. Poor judgment? HAH! Anyone within a mile radius could see that it was a joke, and nothing more. You're just fishing for reasons to warn someone who generally chaps your hide.

Dacon left because of RL troubles, and not wanting to get caught up with arguing over the people he didn't like here. There's more important shit in life than this place. From what I understood I thought the only person on staff he said he didn't like was MOG.



...Now this is where I would say you're putting words in my mouth. It'd be nice if you didn't do the same thing you admonished me for. We never said we don't care what the members think, and we've had members vote for mods before. However in this case, we felt an appointment of someone new who doesn't have their opinions and judgments colored by the previous happenings and interactions with members here, would be a good idea. A blank slate in regards to what goes on here.

Because everyone here on staff is a veteran, and we want a new perspective that isn't one belonging to a veteran or long time member here to give their two cents on matters here. It's a unique and new perspective that hasn't been on staff before.

Well I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you. However, maybe you could be convinced by actually seeing how it works out. It's not like its going to hurt anyone.

Well when someone makes an argument and it isn't countered, that doesn't really reflect well on the staff.

So making 'promises' in jest can't be jokes, either? I'm sorry, I'll make sure that next time I say 'First person who gets this answer right/posts/etc' gets a litereal fucking cookie shipped to their house because otherwise, I'd be a lying, promise breaking person, according to your logic.

Almost every time you post in this area of the forum. Most of the posts in this topic, for one.

Lately, I've been to bashing my head against a cinderblock with the hope that maybe, maybe a golden egg will pop out. I've been doing this for a long while now with absolutely no success but hopefully one day it'll happen!

fair enough

To be honest, I felt pretty damn condescended to by most of them, so I can see where she was coming from. And it's good to see that criticism of the staff was part of the reason she got the warning. Honestly, to me it looks more like it was the suggestion that staff would reward brown nosing that upset the staff than anything else.

But with you there's no such thing as 'I disagree but I'll leave it at that' or 'let's agree to disagree'. When arguing with you, I've noticed you do not stop until you get the answer you want or you're satisfied.

Real life does not work that way buddy!

Honestly, if that were the case, you would've been warned and banned several pages ago. :monster:

Sorry you don't feel the warning was justified bro, but saying someone sucked cock for their position is pretty rude. Especially in a serious thread discussion, and towards a guy you don't even know. Maybe if this was one of your pals and you two were joking around you'd have a point, but....that's not the case. At all.

I don't. That's why my post count is so high. :'c

Dacon said on MSN that this appointment and staff's poor response to the criticism it generated was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm sorry, but you explicitly said you wanted someone new on staff regardless of how that would make the members feel. I'm not sure how else I was supposed to read that, other than that you don't care what the members think about staff appointments, which, by the way, are one of the most important aspects of forum politics.

Everyone's perspective is a unique and new that hasn't been on staff before, unless they're former staff. The fact that you'd rather have the opinion of someone who doesn't have much experience with the board than the opinion of someone who has identified problems and criticised them speaks volumes about the way this place is run.

I'm certainly going to give him a chance, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop criticising the way he was appointed.