Also, if we want to talk about misunderstandings – what about cherry-picking Discord conversations to create a narrative of incompetence or totalitarian administration using out of context quotes?

Aren't you the one who took several screencaps in Valhalla? I mean, if you wanna talk about cherry picking, you did the same yourself. Very hypocritical if you ask me.

Aren't you the one who took several screencaps in Valhalla? I mean, if you wanna talk about cherry picking, you did the same yourself. Very hypocritical if you ask me.

Those were large screencaps that showed significant issues to the administration at the time with as much context as I could show. But yes, I leaked information I thought was diminutive to the site to Mahz privately. I don’t think it’s very much the same thing though I can see why it could be comparable given the circumstances and context.

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
Those were large screencaps that showed significant issues to the administration at the time with as much context as I could show. But yes, I leaked information I thought was diminutive to the site to Mahz privately. I don’t think it’s very much the same thing though I can see why it could be comparable given the circumstances and context.

And one could not argue that these screencaps were made with the assumption that those taking it showed significant issues to the administration at the time? If anything, there were several screencaps of those chat logs, so one could assume one attempted to show context here as well.

It's quite practically going "when you do it it's wrong, but if I do it, I'm right."

The methods and reasoning behind both screencap incidents were the same, so yes, you would be hypocritical.

And one could not argue that these screencaps were made with the assumption that those taking it showed significant issues to the administration at the time? If anything, there were several screencaps of those chat logs, so one could assume one attempted to show context here as well.

It's quite practically going "when you do it it's wrong, but if I do it, I'm right."

The methods and reasoning behind both screencap incidents were the same, so yes, you would be hypocritical.

There are less information provided than the leaks I provided one member of the staff who happens to run the site. I also made a disclaimer regarding the issues in an objective manner, but it’s easy to pick straws. But no, it isn’t a case of what you suggest though I don’t blame you for coming to that conclusion based on the information you have. That said, I can be prone to making mistakes and just because I’ve done something doesn’t make it not an issue when another person does. This isn’t a case of goose for gander but rather questioning the practice when it creates a misunderstanding for an entire community.

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
There are less information provided than the leaks I provided one member of the staff who happens to run the site. I also made a disclaimer regarding the issues in an objective manner, but it’s easy to pick straws. But no, it isn’t a case of what you suggest though I don’t blame you for coming to that conclusion based on the information you have.

There's little evidence to suggest otherwise than your word, which I honestly don't trust because you're not really an objective party. But alright, suit yourself.

I'd rather see hard evidence rather than "take my word for it", as there's little to suggest you didn't cherrypick those screencaps either.

Also, if we want to talk about misunderstandings – what about cherry-picking Discord conversations to create a narrative of incompetence or totalitarian administration using out of context quotes?

If you and/or anyone else feels this to be the case, then I will happily accept further explanations, screenshots, and so on. I will gladly recede any of my points along with this as well. That, I imagine, is among the reasons that Hank unlocked this thread for discussion.

Until then, however, there is little to no evidence to suggest that these examples are "cherry-picked" as you insist.

There's little evidence to suggest otherwise than your word, which I honestly don't trust because you're not really an objective party. But alright, suit yourself.

I'd rather see hard evidence rather than "take my word for it", as there's little to suggest you didn't cherrypick those screencaps either.

I imagine few people are completely objective on this issue. There is a fence for all involved parties – opposition or authority. It’s a nice sentiment to think one can be absolutely unbiased, but I don’t think I or even yourself are. I am trying to be rational and objective despite my bias, however. If you wish to discuss the issues about Valhalla then we can talk about that separate issue privately if you so desire.

_{<Snipped quote by Yoshua171>}
No, it isn’t.

But that fear might not be exclusively the fault of the administration. Over the last few months there have been efforts, intent aside, that have caused spread of distrust and possibly damage of the infrastructure. I won’t even mention diverting moderator time away from thread management to deal with duplicate accounts with intent to cause sitewide dissent. The moderators on RPG are not draconian by any measure, but if they are getting more assertive or exhausted I don’t blame them for doing so knowing what has occurred since Mahz’s return. This ripple effect you mention is not exclusive to the moderation team but also the opposition, dissenters, and disenfranchised whom have intentionally or unintentionally created a domino effect that has led to damaging the site and what I imagine is wasting the time of key staff members on a vocal disruption.

Also, if we want to talk about misunderstandings – what about cherry-picking Discord conversations to create a narrative of incompetence or totalitarian administration using out of context quotes?

At no point did I say that non-mod individuals don't cause ripples. In fact, the entire point of my argument is that mods create bigger ripples, implying that normal people also create ripples.

Additionally, I was there when many of these cherry picked discord conversations, were had, many of us were. The thing is, a whole lot of discord conversations are had in which PERHAPS legitimate points or counterpoints were made (facts included), but that doesn't mean they were seen. As with the mods, the players typically have lives outside of this medium and as a result can equally not be expected to see everything. Still, the thing here is, that even should the many users of the Guild also be responsible--which you're right, we all probably are to some extent--many of those "thoughts," and "issues" came from the fact that concerning things did in fact happen, and then were not addressed.

However, seeing some of the responses here I think I'd like to reevaluate a part of my stance.

I agree that it mods should not have to "answer to the public," or tell everyone why people were banned. Fine, very well, they do not want to create MORE drama aside from people getting banned to begin with. However, I do think that the person who gets banned, needs to be told WHY they were banned and that some sort of discussion should be had with them perhaps prior to the ban taking effect. Why? Because then even if they are angry they know why it happened to them. This allows the people to reflect on their actions, rather than remaining in a confused, sort of upset, limbo that makes them want to lash out because they don't know why these bad things are happening to them. Furthermore, if you have users know why they were banned, then if anyone wants to find out what happened they can just go ask.

Then you get less spread of confusion, and less fear of the unknown gaps, which creates a generally calmer and more stable social climate. Also, in the case of this post, I can concretely tell you that it was never Cyndyr's intention to cause site wide dissent. Anyone who knows her at least a little can attest to that. Hell, anyone who read the first post should know better, especially given that the thread was unlocked because she is being polite and understanding in the interest of causing discussion. Soo...I don't know, I feel like that bit kind of speaks for itself.

Anyways, at the end of the day that's just my opinion and the thoughts of how I think the problem could be resolved. It's really nothing too drastic to be honest.

Also, in the case of this post, I can concretely tell you that it was never Cyndyr's intention to cause site wide dissent. Anyone who knows her at least a little can attest to that. Hell, anyone who read the first post should know better, especially given that the thread was unlocked because she is being polite and understanding in the interest of causing discussion. Soo...I don't know, I feel like that bit kind of speaks for itself.

Anyways, at the end of the day that's just my opinion and the thoughts of how I think the problem could be resolved. It's really nothing too drastic to be honest.

I agree, especially after having a conversation with her about the subject. However, intention does not always matter as sad as that may be. Domino Effects and action-reaction dynamics tend to happen ignoring intent. While we should consider the intention of someone’s actions, it doesn’t make the effects of their actions excusable entirely. My principal worry is that with this thread and others before it the danger of sowed dissent, de-validation of staff, and damage of site social infrastructure are very pertinent and need to be considered. When you make bold accusations (or simply distinctive critique) in a public forum it speaks a message that is quite problematic and does potential damage in the short-term.

So what do you do with that metric? How do you perceive it?

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
I imagine few people are completely objective on this issue. There is a fence for all involved parties – opposition or authority. It’s a nice sentiment to think one can be absolutely unbiased, but I don’t think I or even yourself are. I am trying to be rational and objective despite my bias, however. If you wish to discuss the issues about Valhalla then we can talk about that separate issue privately if you so desire.

Why do I have to be inherently against authority? There was little to suggest I was against authority until I merely criticized babycrib. Even then it was more about authority doing their job rather than outright "opposition", I'm not here to say fuck the polis fuck the guild.

Never claimed I was objective.

I had little to do with Valhalla since I wasn't even in there at the time of the screencap incident, and my mentioning it was due to it being eerily similar to what you claimed this thread was doing.

Why is criticism of moderators seen as a "threat" to the site? Furthermore, why is it that I'm somehow undermining authority by doing so? Or anyone else?

It's this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.

Seems rather counterproductive.

I agree that it mods should not have to "answer to the public," or tell everyone why people were banned. Fine, very well, they do not want to create MORE drama aside from people getting banned to begin with. However, I do think that the person who gets banned, needs to be told WHY they were banned and that some sort of discussion should be had with them perhaps prior to the ban taking effect. Why? Because then even if they are angry they know why it happened to them. This allows the people to reflect on their actions, rather than remaining in a confused, sort of upset, limbo that makes them want to lash out because they don't know why these bad things are happening to them. Furthermore, if you have users know why they were banned, then if anyone wants to find out what happened they can just go ask.

This is fair. We generally operate under the assumption that people know precisely what they've done when they get banned but I can see how that isn't self-explanatory 100% of the time, and implementing your suggestion prevents people feigning ignorance even if they do understand.

As for everyone else, I'll be replying to all valid points of discussion in this thread over the course of this week. I'd also like to make it clear that I definitely won't be banning anyone for speaking their mind about the administration in this thread... as long as they don't break any other site rules in doing so. Nobody is in the "firing line" for a ban here.

Why do I have to be inherently against authority? There was little to suggest I was against authority until I merely criticized babycrib. Even then it was more about authority doing their job rather than outright "opposition", I'm not here to say fuck the polis fuck the guild.

Never claimed I was objective.

I had little to do with Valhalla since I wasn't even in there at the time of the screencap incident, and my mentioning it was due to it being eerily similar to what you claimed this thread was doing.

Why is criticism of moderators seen as a "threat" to the site? Furthermore, why is it that I'm somehow undermining authority by doing so? Or anyone else?

It's this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.

Seems rather counterproductive.

It’s not a negative term, just a neutral descriptor for those criticizing or opposed to actions of the staff which I have denoted as the “authority”. It’s easier to discuss things than writing some convoluted sentence, lol.

As for why critique (unconstructive or constructive) is problematic for the scope of the site, I’ve explained that above in my ‘domino effect’ point. But to sum it up, actions have reactions and despite the intent of ones critique the dialogue presents a challenging issue when its effect could be diminutive to the site’s integrity. Sowing dissent, discrediting staff, and creating a narrative that the staff have made questionable or unjustified decisions can be dangerous. See my talking point for a larger reason for my perspective as a user of the site regarding this.

It’s not a negative term, just a neutral descriptor for those criticizing or opposed to actions of the staff which I have denoted as the “authority”. It’s easier to discuss things than writing some convoluted sentence, lol.

As for why critique (unconstructive or constructive) is problematic for the scope of the site, I’ve explained that above in my ‘domino effect’ point. But to sum it up, actions have reactions and despite the intent of ones critique the dialogue presents a challenging issue when its effect could be diminutive to the site’s integrity. Sowing dissent, discrediting staff, and creating a narrative that the staff have made questionable or unjustified decisions can be dangerous. See my talking point for a larger reason for my perspective as a user of the site regarding this.

I'd argue this is a fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy in fact. Offering actual criticism, constructive criticism like this thread will not harm the guild in any irreplaceable or major way.

You're attempting to dissuade any dialogue about moderation policies out of a misguided belief that it will lead to community damage.

i.e. a domino effect, which honestly...

isn't true.

Exhibit A, Grim's banned post that went wayyyy out of line and was actually somewhat malicious. Where is the downfall of the guild community after that thread? And note this was an extremely toxic post, one that actually had intent of harming the community somewhat.

Nothing... ever really happened.

Not to mention the fact that domino theory in real life doesn't really pan out that way.

i.e. the communist countries that fell never really spread communism that far.

If anything it's fear mongering and a poor excuse to shut down actual meaningful conversation.

I know I've only been here a week, but lemme give all you peeps some advice. Be yourself and if you get banned, then fuck it - there's plenty other sites to go to. If you're involved in a creative environment, but are afraid to say things or talk about things for fear of being banned then staying isn't worth it.

No matter how much work you put into this place, or time you devote to it, unless you own the site then being a member here is a "blessing not a right". There are no laws stating that they have to do anything when it comes to whom they ban.

Personally I haven't had any problems here yet, being new, but already this place looks a little shady based on the mod's responses.

A lot of websites have a Ban List, with the name of the user and a pic/link to the post that got them banned. Nothing else said about it. It's a locked thread so no one can reply to it. This is a great idea because it will stop the questioning of your judgments AND make sure the mod's can't abuse their power because they have to show the proof of their actions.

And people should be able to make appeals for others, especially if they have evidence. There's really no legitimate reason to not allow that, except for the fact that you don't want to.

I'd argue this is a fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy in fact. Offering actual criticism, constructive criticism like this thread will not harm the guild in any irreplaceable or major way. You're attempting to dissuade any dialogue about moderation policies out of a misguided belief that it will lead to community damage.

i.e. a domino effect, which honestly... isn't true.

Exhibit A, Grim's banned post that went wayyyy out of line and was actually somewhat malicious. Where is the downfall of the guild community after that thread? And note this was an extremely toxic post, one that actually had intent of harming the community somewhat.

Nothing... ever really happened.

That’s a fair point. However, this does imply that all of the criticism is constructive. I certainly believe some of Cynder’s points are legitimate and it is a means to constructively gather an answer for the situation at large – but I’m not just talking about this thread.

You mentioned Grimhildr/Wade Wilson’s thread, good. But we happen to fundamentally disagree on our conclusions on its impact and relevance. Grim might’ve gone out with a pocketful of dynamite but I don’t think there aren’t effects of any kind for their insistence on leaving the guild as they did or the users who kept re-posting the thread in question to get it seen and to spread dissent rather than have a productive dialogue with staff about principal trust issues between them and certain individuals. Which is exactly what happened. I believe that it did do something as opposed to your nothing as tensions rise and distrust is manufactured between members and staff.

It’s fine if you disagree since I really don’t have any evidence that this has happened, but given conversations in discord and some of the replies in this thread as well as some private correspondence between myself and friends of mine it’s obviously triggered something. Re-posting threads and dragging moderator’s names through the mud for a personal grievance is a way to exasperate this and I’m afraid that albeit in the short term that is exactly what is going to happen.

If I’m wrong then good, but I think there are some very valid concerns given the schism of sorts that has plagued our website. Making things a public discussion when you are accusing key members of things is a dangerous precedent. My views are different than yours and even my contemporaries on the site. But no, I am not trying to dissuade constructive criticism and I truly hope I am wrong that this is going to do more harm than good. I just want to be clear that this is a clusterfuck situation with various problems, problems on the right and the left of the fence.

If anything it's fear mongering and a poor excuse to shut down actual meaningful conversation.

Nah, I’m not try to incite fear or shut down meaningful conversation. This is under the presumption this will be a meaningful conversation going forward, I am merely criticizing the critique as it were. The main point of my argument isn’t “don’t speak your mind ever!”, a suggestion I detest entirely.

<Snipped quote by yoshua171>
As for everyone else, I'll be replying to all valid points of discussion in this thread over the course of this week. I'd also like to make it clear that I definitely won't be banning anyone for speaking their mind about the administration in this thread... as long as they don't break any other site rules in doing so. Nobody is in the "firing line" for a ban here.

That's really good to see. Most of us, except one person that's actively trying to kill the discussion with fallacies and fearmongering, came here because we have felt that this is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Constructive criticism and or diverging opinions should never be seen as threats, or censored "for the greater good" as long as they are being discussed in a civil manner. We are hungry for answers and rightfully so, since we are just pooling together to open the debate.

The simple fact that you (the whole admin/mod body, I assume) have finally acknowledged that and accepted this as a channel of communication with the community, is enough to earn a bit of my respect. It may not be much but at least it's a sign of good will.

I don't think that there's anything else I can add to this discussion at this point. I'll be waiting for your replies/clarification.

Thanks and see you later.

Constructive criticism and or diverging opinions should never be seen as threats, or censored "for the greater good" as long as they are being discussed in a civil manner.

This is the main reason that this dialogue hasn't happened before this thread. We don't censor constructive criticism and we haven't done so before. Buddha's thread a while back was a good example, even if little came of it so far.

We're not done building the Guild and the mod team, by the way. You're all looking at and participating in a perpetual work-in-progress. Things will change.

Turns out I was wrong this is not a matrix of evil.

That is my two cents.

It’s fine if you disagree since I really don’t have any evidence that this has happened, but given conversations in discord and some of the replies in this thread as well as some private correspondence between myself and friends of mine it’s obviously triggered something. Re-posting threads and dragging moderator’s names through the mud for a personal grievance is a way to exasperate this and I’m afraid that albeit in the short term that is exactly what is going to happen.

But that's the ENTIRE reason why you're using a slippery slope fallacy. If there is no evidence that your proposal, that these events actually did trigger something substantial, then it really is a fallacy. Personal Anecdotes really aren't evidence either, as you yourself note.

Also, now that my memory serves me right, didn't you take Chai's comments in Valhalla out of context once, blocking her over a misunderstanding?

Cyn is at least trying to let the mods have a chance to explain themselves rather than doing something like Grim.

#LeaveGowiAlone

#IStandWithGareth