The difference is artwork moderation is not effected by personal life biases , also since when did all mods become globals ?
Since Viricide/Brandon quit the staff and we hired three new staffers for WCT, a mod-only subforum was made in WCT for discussing moderation between members. It has been left open for all staff to speak their mind in there, much like the earlier Speakeasy/NSFW mod lounge.
Except you can't have anti-gay sentiment without tying negative qualities to being gay. That's the whole point. People who are anti-gay are saying that being gay is immoral, and "being gay is immoral" is a position that they hold because they believe that gay people express harmful and negative qualities.
So in other words, you are creating a rule against anti-gay sentiments.
Wouldn't the discussion spinning off from such anti-gay statements belong in Debate anyway?
All I've seen from this rule is that highly provocative arguments/opinions are being asked to be relocated to sections better suited to house the conversation such things more often than not lead to. Which I don't feel is a bad thing. If a user holds anti-gay sentiments, they're free to express them civilly, but given the nature of the subject, the best place for that is Debate. And that's just using your example. I can see the same logic being applied to a wide range of subjects that are likely to get too heated for WCT.
I haven't gotten any indication that this is anything more than a guideline and not something that's likely to lead to many warnings or infractions (those that are would likely be modded even without this rule since they'd likely fall under flaming/trolling/hate speech rules).
I just don't get why this is a big deal. Just take the sensitive arguments to a place better suited for them. If you see a post benignly espousing a view you disagree with, just make a spinoff thread in Debate and invite those in the WCT thread to discuss the issue with you in a debate environment. It's not hard. Or unreasonable even.
I'll even give you an example keeping in theme with your anti-gay example from earlier.
A thread is started in WCT discussing a user's experience at a high school prom that allowed a same-sex couple to attend. Another user reads the thread and wants to talk about why he/she thinks this is wrong. All this rule is asking is that the user in question do so in a forum better suited for the ensuing debate than WCT. So the user can go to Debate, start a thread about the morality of same-sex couples at proms, even link back to the WCT thread that inspired it with a "I read this thread the other day and it got me thinking ..." or even go back to the WCT thread and mention that the topic interested that poster but rather than derail the WCT thread, he opened a thread to debate the issue.
Now, if the user disregarded the new rule and posted in the WCT thread about the morality of the issue, I can see a WCT mod stepping in and asking the debate be taken to the actual Debate forum (which is something I was doing as far back as 2006, for what it's worth). I can't see infractions flying unless a) the user derailing the WCT thread somehow crossed a line into flaming/trolling (which is covered by the main forum rules) or b) the user ignored the request to take the debate elsewhere (which is, again, an actual forum rule).
I just think we should take a step back and think about how this is realistically going to be applied. Rather than accuse the WCT of being thought-police with a liberal agenda.
All I've seen from this rule is that highly provocative arguments/opinions are being asked to be relocated to sections better suited to house the conversation such things more often than not lead to.
Is that what has happened? Or has the result been locked threads and warnings?
Doesn't really matter. The other mods in WCT have already said they would take Teia's input into consideration when warning/infracting posts. So while Teia will not be the one handing out the cards, Teia will still have influence in the cards. Teia will still be backseat modding.
Or at least, that is what the community will assume, based on the words of the other mods in WCT. This will only make the situation worse.
The two solutions I see would be to move Teia to another forum that is less political (but Teia would still have input on WCT and Debate forum rules, so speculation about Teia's biases influencing rules would persist), or remove Teia from the moderation team entirely.
The second solution would probably be best. A lot of mods have lost standing in the community for rushing to Teia's defense, and removing Teia from the mod team would likely help restore that standing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
@Talore: No my question is why a mod from WCT has an equal voice in artwork ?
It is my understanding a mod moderates only their own subforum except for emergencies , otherwise if a mod can mod everywhere freely then what is point of globals ? If they can't then your point about equal voice in artwork confuses me as teia does not have the ability to moderate artwork.
Thanks in advance for clarification.
It doesn't work the other way around, currently only Speakeasy/NSFW and WCT have open mod lounges. Of course when something is tricky, controversial, or something else where the local mods want more input we'll post in the general Moderator Lounge to gather opinions. Globals can actually do moderator things (edit posts, issue infractions, lock threads, etc.) in all boards, where locals can't. I can't infract people in CI, delete threads in Rumor Mill, or lock threads in WCT. Globals can.
... *Blinks* I'm... Wow. I'm genuinely speechless as to just how immature, unproductive, and petty that was.
Accusing you of a logical fallacy is petty now?
No, that's what I want as well. This is why I'm arguing against posts regarding sensitive topics being censored. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I'm having an issue with the idea that you want both a more mature discussion venue and at the same time believe it to be possible to have a more expressive venue; I believe these two goals to be somewhat at cross purposes. Can you enlighten me?
This was, as you stated, Teia's infraction - new mods make mistakes, it's part of the learning process. That issue was dealt with and since then she has not, to the best of my knowledge, made that mistake again.
Almost anyone would have thought out that scenario before infracting the post. Something like "Well gee, if I infract this post that was made in response to a post I made before I was a mod...will it look bad?" Most people would answer that with a "yes" and leave it for another mod.
Mistakes are one thing. That would be like warning or infracting a post for spamming or trolling that was not really spamming or trolling. This was a gross misjudgment on Teia's part, and a showing of lack of thought into what would happen.
There is no difference between Teia infracting a post Teia has biases conflicting with, and Teia telling another mod in the forum (Senori or Frox) "Hey, this post should be infracted." Let's use your Vintage forum (a forum I'd love to post more often in if more people were active there). Let's say myself and urweak didn't get along (purely hypothetical), and I made a post that was within the rules of the forums. Someone reports it, and instead of warning/infracting me himself to avoid looking vindictive, urweak comes to you and asks you to infract the post instead so he doesn't look vindictive.
How is you infracting the post at urweak's request any different than Senori or Frox infracting a post at Teia's request?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
The thing about that? Senori and Frox are not dictated by Teia. Teia can look at a post and say 'this needs to be carded'. But unless Frox and/or Senori agree, it's not going to get carded.
Funnily enough, it doesn't fit into the false dichotomy you just constructed.
Sen and Frox are not bound to Teia's wants. They get to choose, of their own will, to card or not. I gather they're trying to work together and speak over every post, but just because Teia says "I think it needs to be infracted" doesn't mean that it happens.
The thing about that? Senori and Frox are not dictated by Teia. Teia can look at a post and say 'this needs to be carded'. But unless Frox and/or Senori agree, it's not going to get carded.
And they have already announced that they would support Teia's recommendations.
After that, there is basically no difference between Teia carding a post in a thread where Teia's biases force a conflict of interests, and Senori or Frox carding the same post. Because of what Senori and Frox said, everyone will just assume that Teia had say in the card, regardless of who cards it.
The damage has been done to moderator credibility in WCT. The only two possible fixes at this point are to either move Teia to another forum where Teia's biases will be irrelevant, or remove Teia from the moderator team.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Right now, the three mods are currently working on consensus. If one doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. All three mods will need to say 'yes' for something to occur.
Further, I've been watching over the mods for at least the past week and have been getting reports of any action they've been taking.
Right now, the three mods are currently working on consensus. If one doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. All three mods will need to say 'yes' for something to occur.
Further, I've been watching over the mods for at least the past week and have been getting reports of any action they've been taking.
If Teia has any say in the consensus in regards to posts where Teia's biases cause a conflict of interests, then there is no impartiality at all.
Can't you see the issues this has caused Nai? You got a wide spectrum of people (from the left wing to the right wing) up in arms about Teia being made a mod in a politically sensitive forum. The mods of the forum are claiming everything is fine, a handful of users are supporting them, and a lot more people are telling them something is wrong in the forum...and those in dissent are being marginalized with claims they are a "vocal minority" (which has been disproven by others in all these threads) and their concerns are ignored.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
If Teia has any say in the consensus in regards to posts where Teia's biases cause a conflict of interests, then there is no impartiality at all.
Can't you see the issues this has caused Nai? You got a wide spectrum of people (from the left wing to the right wing) up in arms about Teia being made a mod in a politically sensitive forum. The mods of the forum are claiming everything is fine, a handful of users are supporting them, and a lot more people are telling them something is wrong in the forum...and those in dissent are being marginalized with claims they are a "vocal minority" (which has been disproven by others in all these threads) and their concerns are ignored.
But every mod here has their own biases. I'm sure Sen and Frox do too. Your argument is that no mod on this site should so much as breath a word about any subject where they have personal investment. Which is lovely in an idealistic sort of way, but doesn't actually work.
Personally, I think 2/3 mods should be enough to take action. But they're requiring 3/3. If both Sen AND Frox agree that something needs to be infracted, and that I, as the direct overseer, agree with them? Chances are, a carding is needed.
The fact that Teia's voice was heard doesn't factor in.
Thankyou, that changes things and is reassuring .
I still would request a 2 month observation period without rules/policy change for the sake of both community and staff.
In this time of unrest it can't hurt for the staff to have time to monitor the communities feelings and the community to have time to re-establish trust in the staff.
Two months is a very long time on this website. There's been a lot of staff overturn in two months, on all levels of the staff. There's also been a lot of policy changes all over the place.
And when you say 'observation period', are you talking about 'upper staff overwatch'? Or are you asking that Teia looks but doesn't touch for two months?
I'm done arguing with the admins. They've basically stuck their heads in the sand and are ignoring the problems that have resulted in this ****storm, while claiming that the mods are doing a fine job and supporting everything the mods do regardless of the uproar from the user community (who are marginalized by claims they are a vocal minority when they are, in fact, a majority of posters involved - there are very few posts supporting these mod and admin actions, and significantly more condemning them, some "vocal minority").
At this point, I have no confidence in the leadership of this site anymore and I sincerely hope the house is cleaned when Curse takes over (if MTGS does get sold). We have one big "Old Boys Club" for the leadership and their friends among the users who can do whatever they want, and then there is everyone else who has to follow the rules to the letter or get carded. I could point to at least a half dozen mods and admins who would have lost their positions on other forums.
Instead, the incompetency and outright corruption of elements of this forum's leadership has driven the better mods and admins out of the system. Not to mention the (intentional?) ambiguity of many of the rules (such as an infraction I got for posting a "large" image when the maximum size of images that could be posted in that thread without spoiler tags was not defined - the rule merely says "use spoiler tags for large images" with no mention of dimensions, and that rule is today worded the exact same) with the whole "rules are enforced at moderator discretion" thing - if a mod likes you, rules don't matter; if the mod doesn't like you, rules matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Does anyone have any theories as to why people were uncomfortable approaching me about the problems with my time on staff, but were eager to approach the new team? I'm legitimately curious, as I believe this would help me better myself as a person. Thanks in advance.
Does anyone have any theories as to why people were uncomfortable approaching me about the problems with my time on staff, but were eager to approach the new team? I'm legitimately curious, as I believe this would help me better myself as a person. Thanks in advance.
FWIW, my theory is that no one had issues with you whatsoever; but, then again, maybe I'm being a barnacle.
Then again (again), maybe you truly had and weren't to have any patently egregious issues - or that you handled things (well) - in your days as a moderator of Water-Cooler Talk.
(Edit: I also thought/think you were/are wise and balanced as a person.)
Sorry to seem as though I haven't bore the reading of a few posts (thus far, ~200; also, I have read the thread and now I'm feeling super silly) but what precisely is the problem?
The ship has sailed on the staff asking our opinions about Teia's worthiness for being on staff. Continuing to harp on it is unproductive as it makes it sound like we're grinding a personal axe and it will not change any opinion. Let that part go. If we're right, it will become clear in time that she is a problem. If we're wrong, we can let it go and apologize later.
Thanks.
Quote from Harkius »
In this thread, and others like it, you've continually given the impression that all of the staff has input on how any subsection of the site is run. Is that the case? Because I'd assure you that, unless people are intimately familiar with the day-to-day of that subsection, they're likely to not understand the culture. For example, I see posts outside of Debate that get flagged for Flaming and Trolling all of the time that would be fine (and appropriate) in Debate.
I'd like to think that people wouldn't get involved if they weren't familiar with the subculture...but I'm not that naive.
Is this truly how things are working now?
I won't reveal every name because I don't know if people want their privacy about it, but the WCT lounge is mostly us WCT mods, Nai, Sene (until now :(), Talore, an unnamed former Admin, and occasionally other people stopping in.
Agreed. These "issues" keep being cited but have yet to appear in any substantiated way.
Yep, because I won't reveal things told in confidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To be clear, my issues with that concept are much more severe than my issues with rules being properly arranged. That's a recipe for activist personnel on staff to go on a site-wide crusade.
You might want to consider that when hiring new folk, in the future.
I mean, it's not like (say) Talore will come in and say a post should be warned and argue with us WCT mods about it; he reports posts the way anyone else does. It's just a way to have his input in our thinking about broader WCT things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Does anyone have any theories as to why people were uncomfortable approaching me about the problems with my time on staff, but were eager to approach the new team? I'm legitimately curious, as I believe this would help me better myself as a person. Thanks in advance.
While I would genuinely love to discuss this with you, I am afraid to. Can you understand that?
Does anyone have any theories as to why people were uncomfortable approaching me about the problems with my time on staff, but were eager to approach the new team? I'm legitimately curious, as I believe this would help me better myself as a person. Thanks in advance.
I'm going to weigh in on this, but I believe I touched on this previously, in another thread (I think it was a helpdesk). Keep in mind, I'm basing this off of conjecture largely, though also in my time working as a moderator and admin on other forums, and as an alliance intelligence officer, diplomacy officer, and commanding officer in EVE Online.
The problem here isn't that people were "uncomfortable" with you as a moderator. As I said previously, I had very little dealings with you as a moderator, mainly because I didn't frequent WCT and haven't since this whole dramafest began. I think it boils down to the passive-aggressive tendencies that happen once someone is on the internet.
People love these forums. I know I enjoy them. But now, there's been an upheaval. People didn't like Ria for whatever reason, and he was removed. He was a contentious person to begin with (if I was reading that thread correctly), and it finally got to the point that there were even other staff saying they had problems with him. Ria had a strong, "iron-fisted" way of dealing with things, and that wasn't okay.
So now, we come to what is going on here. It's another dramabomb that has escalated. People are wary of drama (me...not so much, I'll admit). So since a former admin has been called out (you), you've wanted that fixed. You wanted a retraction, you were not given one. You are made out to be the bad guy here, because people don't want another dramafest. You are someone with no power, and these people are afraid of running afoul of the people who can ban them. So they defend them, even if it's wrong. This goes with the whole passive-aggressive attitude: I don't want a conflict, but if it happens then I will side with the person with the biggest stick.
As I said before and multiple times, you were not a bad moderator. You are not a bad person. What we have is a bunch of children white-knighting for Teia and Senori (and please, notice its really just Teia and Senori putting their feet in their mouths). You are a bad person, Brandon. I am a bad person for supporting you. Logic_X and Solaran_X are bad people too. Harkius is totally the devil for starting the threads that dealt with this originally and Ria. Damn you, Harkius!
I will say right now that I don't go into WCT anymore to post. I read the crap that is posted (because I'm being honest, it's crap compared to the quality that it used to be), but I Do not post. I don't post, because it's clear that my very posting will offend someone as I apparently do. And I don't care. This isn't grade school. I don't come onto forums for me to have my hand held by a bunch of neckbeards and socially-inept children/teenagers who have an ounce of power and feel the need to flaunt it. I regularly beat that out of the moderators that I ordain on my forums, I Don't need to deal with that here.
So, while we're being honest here, let me be frank.
We are not the "vocal minority". We are the proverbial 99%. We are vocal because we give a damn. You ****ed with what we loved, and you've driven it into the ground.
You're lying when you say you have a bunch of people supporting you "in private". I'll say it now, Senori and Teia: You're flat-out lying. You refuse to provide the evidence to counter this. If it was even remotely true, it wouldn't be white-knighting for you that makes you think you have supporters. It would be people coming in and making legitimate claims, and saying they support you. You have a bunch of sheep following you.
The level of activity should be obvious. But if your plan was to make it where it's all rainbows and ponies, then congratulations! You have a subforum that will probably be killed off by the staff for lack of activity.
As far as I am wiling to say, because I was willing to compromise, the decisions are simple:
1.) Return the rules to how they were, and ask for legitimate community input which you have failed to do to make a comprehensive rules set that includes everyone, or;
2.) Remove Teia and Senori from the staff.
The only reason I include that second part is because we are ostracized and dismissed out of hand by them. That, and they constantly put their foot in their mouth, and it makes me laugh each and every time because you just prove us right.
Oh, and the reason I'm incredibly annoyed at this? A moderator got ahold of my AIM screen name and sent me the following:
I wish you and the other ****ing rabblerousers would leave the ****ing forums and leave us all in peace. No one gives a **** about what you think. If you seriously killed yourselves today, no one would miss you.
I must be in high school again. My response can be summed up as follows before he placed me on ignore:
The guy dropped his name, I won't provide it. I'm not calling out a moderator like that in public. One of the staff knows who it is, he said he'd handle it. But I wanted to provide that little tidbit, to show that it's not just that other guy in the first page who has tried to tell us to piss off. I don't give a damn about him, because it was backwards thinking like him that has gotten us into this mess, and got MTGNews into the mess it did. The parallels are really striking. It's like I called it before or something, and was told it wasn't happening.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
You're lying when you say you have a bunch of people supporting you "in private". I'll say it now, Senori and Teia: You're flat-out lying. You refuse to provide the evidence to counter this. If it was even remotely true, it wouldn't be white-knighting for you that makes you think you have supporters. It would be people coming in and making legitimate claims, and saying they support you. You have a bunch of sheep following you.
I am not lying, and if you accuse me of lying again I will report you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
She learned from that and it won't happen again.
Wouldn't the discussion spinning off from such anti-gay statements belong in Debate anyway?
All I've seen from this rule is that highly provocative arguments/opinions are being asked to be relocated to sections better suited to house the conversation such things more often than not lead to. Which I don't feel is a bad thing. If a user holds anti-gay sentiments, they're free to express them civilly, but given the nature of the subject, the best place for that is Debate. And that's just using your example. I can see the same logic being applied to a wide range of subjects that are likely to get too heated for WCT.
I haven't gotten any indication that this is anything more than a guideline and not something that's likely to lead to many warnings or infractions (those that are would likely be modded even without this rule since they'd likely fall under flaming/trolling/hate speech rules).
I just don't get why this is a big deal. Just take the sensitive arguments to a place better suited for them. If you see a post benignly espousing a view you disagree with, just make a spinoff thread in Debate and invite those in the WCT thread to discuss the issue with you in a debate environment. It's not hard. Or unreasonable even.
I'll even give you an example keeping in theme with your anti-gay example from earlier.
A thread is started in WCT discussing a user's experience at a high school prom that allowed a same-sex couple to attend. Another user reads the thread and wants to talk about why he/she thinks this is wrong. All this rule is asking is that the user in question do so in a forum better suited for the ensuing debate than WCT. So the user can go to Debate, start a thread about the morality of same-sex couples at proms, even link back to the WCT thread that inspired it with a "I read this thread the other day and it got me thinking ..." or even go back to the WCT thread and mention that the topic interested that poster but rather than derail the WCT thread, he opened a thread to debate the issue.
Now, if the user disregarded the new rule and posted in the WCT thread about the morality of the issue, I can see a WCT mod stepping in and asking the debate be taken to the actual Debate forum (which is something I was doing as far back as 2006, for what it's worth). I can't see infractions flying unless a) the user derailing the WCT thread somehow crossed a line into flaming/trolling (which is covered by the main forum rules) or b) the user ignored the request to take the debate elsewhere (which is, again, an actual forum rule).
I just think we should take a step back and think about how this is realistically going to be applied. Rather than accuse the WCT of being thought-police with a liberal agenda.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Is that what has happened? Or has the result been locked threads and warnings?
Doesn't really matter. The other mods in WCT have already said they would take Teia's input into consideration when warning/infracting posts. So while Teia will not be the one handing out the cards, Teia will still have influence in the cards. Teia will still be backseat modding.
Or at least, that is what the community will assume, based on the words of the other mods in WCT. This will only make the situation worse.
The two solutions I see would be to move Teia to another forum that is less political (but Teia would still have input on WCT and Debate forum rules, so speculation about Teia's biases influencing rules would persist), or remove Teia from the moderation team entirely.
The second solution would probably be best. A lot of mods have lost standing in the community for rushing to Teia's defense, and removing Teia from the mod team would likely help restore that standing.
Since this rule came into effect?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
It doesn't work the other way around, currently only Speakeasy/NSFW and WCT have open mod lounges. Of course when something is tricky, controversial, or something else where the local mods want more input we'll post in the general Moderator Lounge to gather opinions. Globals can actually do moderator things (edit posts, issue infractions, lock threads, etc.) in all boards, where locals can't. I can't infract people in CI, delete threads in Rumor Mill, or lock threads in WCT. Globals can.
Accusing you of a logical fallacy is petty now?
I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I'm having an issue with the idea that you want both a more mature discussion venue and at the same time believe it to be possible to have a more expressive venue; I believe these two goals to be somewhat at cross purposes. Can you enlighten me?
Almost anyone would have thought out that scenario before infracting the post. Something like "Well gee, if I infract this post that was made in response to a post I made before I was a mod...will it look bad?" Most people would answer that with a "yes" and leave it for another mod.
Mistakes are one thing. That would be like warning or infracting a post for spamming or trolling that was not really spamming or trolling. This was a gross misjudgment on Teia's part, and a showing of lack of thought into what would happen.
There is no difference between Teia infracting a post Teia has biases conflicting with, and Teia telling another mod in the forum (Senori or Frox) "Hey, this post should be infracted." Let's use your Vintage forum (a forum I'd love to post more often in if more people were active there). Let's say myself and urweak didn't get along (purely hypothetical), and I made a post that was within the rules of the forums. Someone reports it, and instead of warning/infracting me himself to avoid looking vindictive, urweak comes to you and asks you to infract the post instead so he doesn't look vindictive.
How is you infracting the post at urweak's request any different than Senori or Frox infracting a post at Teia's request?
My helpdesk should you need me.
Sen and Frox are not bound to Teia's wants. They get to choose, of their own will, to card or not. I gather they're trying to work together and speak over every post, but just because Teia says "I think it needs to be infracted" doesn't mean that it happens.
My helpdesk should you need me.
And they have already announced that they would support Teia's recommendations.
After that, there is basically no difference between Teia carding a post in a thread where Teia's biases force a conflict of interests, and Senori or Frox carding the same post. Because of what Senori and Frox said, everyone will just assume that Teia had say in the card, regardless of who cards it.
The damage has been done to moderator credibility in WCT. The only two possible fixes at this point are to either move Teia to another forum where Teia's biases will be irrelevant, or remove Teia from the moderator team.
Right now, the three mods are currently working on consensus. If one doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. All three mods will need to say 'yes' for something to occur.
Further, I've been watching over the mods for at least the past week and have been getting reports of any action they've been taking.
My helpdesk should you need me.
If Teia has any say in the consensus in regards to posts where Teia's biases cause a conflict of interests, then there is no impartiality at all.
Can't you see the issues this has caused Nai? You got a wide spectrum of people (from the left wing to the right wing) up in arms about Teia being made a mod in a politically sensitive forum. The mods of the forum are claiming everything is fine, a handful of users are supporting them, and a lot more people are telling them something is wrong in the forum...and those in dissent are being marginalized with claims they are a "vocal minority" (which has been disproven by others in all these threads) and their concerns are ignored.
But every mod here has their own biases. I'm sure Sen and Frox do too. Your argument is that no mod on this site should so much as breath a word about any subject where they have personal investment. Which is lovely in an idealistic sort of way, but doesn't actually work.
Personally, I think 2/3 mods should be enough to take action. But they're requiring 3/3. If both Sen AND Frox agree that something needs to be infracted, and that I, as the direct overseer, agree with them? Chances are, a carding is needed.
The fact that Teia's voice was heard doesn't factor in.
Two months is a very long time on this website. There's been a lot of staff overturn in two months, on all levels of the staff. There's also been a lot of policy changes all over the place.
And when you say 'observation period', are you talking about 'upper staff overwatch'? Or are you asking that Teia looks but doesn't touch for two months?
My helpdesk should you need me.
I'm unsure about the verbal PMs and mod text, that will require a Mod Lounge discussion first.
It does bring up the problem of what rule set to use, though.
My helpdesk should you need me.
At this point, I have no confidence in the leadership of this site anymore and I sincerely hope the house is cleaned when Curse takes over (if MTGS does get sold). We have one big "Old Boys Club" for the leadership and their friends among the users who can do whatever they want, and then there is everyone else who has to follow the rules to the letter or get carded. I could point to at least a half dozen mods and admins who would have lost their positions on other forums.
Instead, the incompetency and outright corruption of elements of this forum's leadership has driven the better mods and admins out of the system. Not to mention the (intentional?) ambiguity of many of the rules (such as an infraction I got for posting a "large" image when the maximum size of images that could be posted in that thread without spoiler tags was not defined - the rule merely says "use spoiler tags for large images" with no mention of dimensions, and that rule is today worded the exact same) with the whole "rules are enforced at moderator discretion" thing - if a mod likes you, rules don't matter; if the mod doesn't like you, rules matter.
FWIW, my theory is that no one had issues with you whatsoever; but, then again, maybe I'm being a barnacle.
Then again (again), maybe you truly had and weren't to have any patently egregious issues - or that you handled things (well) - in your days as a moderator of Water-Cooler Talk.
(Edit: I also thought/think you were/are wise and balanced as a person.)
Sorry to seem as though I haven't bore the reading of a few posts (thus far, ~200; also, I have read the thread and now I'm feeling super silly) but what precisely is the problem?
Agreed. These "issues" keep being cited but have yet to appear in any substantiated way.
Yep, many times:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=8678523
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=8648322
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=8574626
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=8422338
Thanks.
I won't reveal every name because I don't know if people want their privacy about it, but the WCT lounge is mostly us WCT mods, Nai, Sene (until now :(), Talore, an unnamed former Admin, and occasionally other people stopping in.
Yep, because I won't reveal things told in confidence.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I mean, it's not like (say) Talore will come in and say a post should be warned and argue with us WCT mods about it; he reports posts the way anyone else does. It's just a way to have his input in our thinking about broader WCT things.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
While I would genuinely love to discuss this with you, I am afraid to. Can you understand that?
I'm going to weigh in on this, but I believe I touched on this previously, in another thread (I think it was a helpdesk). Keep in mind, I'm basing this off of conjecture largely, though also in my time working as a moderator and admin on other forums, and as an alliance intelligence officer, diplomacy officer, and commanding officer in EVE Online.
The problem here isn't that people were "uncomfortable" with you as a moderator. As I said previously, I had very little dealings with you as a moderator, mainly because I didn't frequent WCT and haven't since this whole dramafest began. I think it boils down to the passive-aggressive tendencies that happen once someone is on the internet.
People love these forums. I know I enjoy them. But now, there's been an upheaval. People didn't like Ria for whatever reason, and he was removed. He was a contentious person to begin with (if I was reading that thread correctly), and it finally got to the point that there were even other staff saying they had problems with him. Ria had a strong, "iron-fisted" way of dealing with things, and that wasn't okay.
So now, we come to what is going on here. It's another dramabomb that has escalated. People are wary of drama (me...not so much, I'll admit). So since a former admin has been called out (you), you've wanted that fixed. You wanted a retraction, you were not given one. You are made out to be the bad guy here, because people don't want another dramafest. You are someone with no power, and these people are afraid of running afoul of the people who can ban them. So they defend them, even if it's wrong. This goes with the whole passive-aggressive attitude: I don't want a conflict, but if it happens then I will side with the person with the biggest stick.
As I said before and multiple times, you were not a bad moderator. You are not a bad person. What we have is a bunch of children white-knighting for Teia and Senori (and please, notice its really just Teia and Senori putting their feet in their mouths). You are a bad person, Brandon. I am a bad person for supporting you. Logic_X and Solaran_X are bad people too. Harkius is totally the devil for starting the threads that dealt with this originally and Ria. Damn you, Harkius!
I will say right now that I don't go into WCT anymore to post. I read the crap that is posted (because I'm being honest, it's crap compared to the quality that it used to be), but I Do not post. I don't post, because it's clear that my very posting will offend someone as I apparently do. And I don't care. This isn't grade school. I don't come onto forums for me to have my hand held by a bunch of neckbeards and socially-inept children/teenagers who have an ounce of power and feel the need to flaunt it. I regularly beat that out of the moderators that I ordain on my forums, I Don't need to deal with that here.
So, while we're being honest here, let me be frank.
We are not the "vocal minority". We are the proverbial 99%. We are vocal because we give a damn. You ****ed with what we loved, and you've driven it into the ground.
You're lying when you say you have a bunch of people supporting you "in private". I'll say it now, Senori and Teia: You're flat-out lying. You refuse to provide the evidence to counter this. If it was even remotely true, it wouldn't be white-knighting for you that makes you think you have supporters. It would be people coming in and making legitimate claims, and saying they support you. You have a bunch of sheep following you.
The level of activity should be obvious. But if your plan was to make it where it's all rainbows and ponies, then congratulations! You have a subforum that will probably be killed off by the staff for lack of activity.
As far as I am wiling to say, because I was willing to compromise, the decisions are simple:
1.) Return the rules to how they were, and ask for legitimate community input which you have failed to do to make a comprehensive rules set that includes everyone, or;
2.) Remove Teia and Senori from the staff.
The only reason I include that second part is because we are ostracized and dismissed out of hand by them. That, and they constantly put their foot in their mouth, and it makes me laugh each and every time because you just prove us right.
Oh, and the reason I'm incredibly annoyed at this? A moderator got ahold of my AIM screen name and sent me the following:
I must be in high school again. My response can be summed up as follows before he placed me on ignore:
The guy dropped his name, I won't provide it. I'm not calling out a moderator like that in public. One of the staff knows who it is, he said he'd handle it. But I wanted to provide that little tidbit, to show that it's not just that other guy in the first page who has tried to tell us to piss off. I don't give a damn about him, because it was backwards thinking like him that has gotten us into this mess, and got MTGNews into the mess it did. The parallels are really striking. It's like I called it before or something, and was told it wasn't happening.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I am not lying, and if you accuse me of lying again I will report you.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.