I disagree with the suggestion to delete the thread, that is precisely the sort of action that resulted in the eruption of this thread.

I think the base of every legit concern so far comes from a place of frustration. It's obvious they are feeling like they aren't being heard and their opinions are either being dismissed or outright censured. The ability to discuss things as a community is important, and while most people are content to lurk and talk behind closed doors, whatever is discussed in public has the notion that it's being seen. People want to see that they're being listened to, and unfortunately PMs are, well, private, and can feel inconsequential, especially when very little changes after the matter.

Please, I love this site and I actually like a majority of the people here. But you have to understand why people are acting the way they are. And ultimately, that's what all this comes down to: people feel they aren't being heard. I know I'm repeating myself but I have to emphasize on it because I genuinely feel that point is being missed.

What stops people from PMing myself or other staff?

Because the public discussions only go so far before they get personal, ugly, or both.

Kindly don't delete my posts either. Sadly I didn't get the posts around it, but as you can see, it actually was posted here.

Ruby, I love this site. I love the people I write with and I want it to succeed. I've never personally spoken to you, so it's not as if I'm here for a personal vendetta. I'm not here in bad faith, but you've deleted my post anyway. The solution I proposed was far from radical; in fact, I think it would fix most of this issue. All any of us want is a little accountability and transparency.

Public discussion is necessary because it forces accountability. If mods or admins can't (or won't) stand by their actions in the public eye, then that gives the user base a reason to doubt the validity of those actions. That's why we're so suspicious of this "bring your issues to PMs" policy.

I disagree with the suggestion to delete the thread, that is precisely the sort of action that resulted in the eruption of this thread.

I think the base of every legit concern so far comes from a place of frustration. It's obvious they are feeling like they aren't being heard and their opinions are either being dismissed or outright censured. The ability to discuss things as a community is important, and while most people are content to lurk and talk behind closed doors, whatever is discussed in public has the notion that it's being seen. People want to see that they're being listened to, and unfortunately PMs are, well, private, and can feel inconsequential, especially when very little changes after the matter.

Please, I love this site and I actually like a majority of the people here. But you have to understand why people are acting the way they are. And ultimately, that's what all this comes down to: people feel they aren't being heard. I know I'm repeating myself but I have to emphasize on it because I genuinely feel that point is being missed.

My hero.

For what reason are bans left unexplained? Would it not be ideal to have a thread that names banned users, listing the reason for their ban, with evidence included, and also the banned users appeals against such bans? Full transparency on the matter would do much to settle fears of misuse of power, and would also deter mods from being tempted to abuse their power due to the nature of having the matter settled within full view of the role-playing public.

I am skeptical of this supposed need for privacy regarding this subject, and further skeptical of the reasoning provided. Just because people may become emotional, or allegedly nasty, as people tend to be because they're not robots, is no legitimate reason for cloak and dagger secrecy.

If one cannot handle the emotions of others, or their own emotions, maybe one does not have the temperament to be a mod.

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

If people want to troll, they're going to find a way to do so; we've seen that from RPGO to the status bar.

Beyond that, posting in good faith is a requirement of this thread, so troll responses, even if there's a point behind them, are removed.

Okay but that's not what was discussed. The point of this site is roleplay, and nobody in question right now ever hurt those fundamentals. People went to the status bar because it seems other methods have failed (largely on account of being deleted for no reason lol) and it reaches the largest amount of people without shitting up IC. Banning people for OOC/Meta critique on the other hand is actually very damaging to the fundamental of the site: roleplay. There is evidently a lot more trolling from the people with ban privileges than the people without.

And pardon me but how does:

This entire post is crap. I've never spoken to you before so I'm guessing the people banned were your friends and you're angry about it. Great reason to harass someone you've never spoken to.

or:

You just had an opinion that criticized the moderators.
Not what the purpose of this thread is for but I don't see any bans coming at you for this post, so...

or my personal favourite:

Cool. Nice version of reality

qualify as good faith? To me it seems like most people were only following the tone set by this (and that's just the first page), and to remove posts for following the example set by moderation seems nonsensical at the very least.

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

What so you mean "be subject to the site rules" in this context? I have been trying my best to avoid breaking them all up to now, so this reads as if I'm doing something wrong by default. Are you really allowing me to post the thread, or are you simply saying "go ahead and try it because I will delete it anyway?"

I don't want to put any words in your mouth, but I do get the feeling it is the latter. I apologise if I assume incorrectly, but I do wish to confirm you are not out to shut down this hypothetical thread the moment I post it.

Every single person who has posted something personal about me today doesn't know me and has never spoken to me outside of site staff. If even then. So...at this point all I can do is let the vocal and angry vent. They'll assume what they want. About me in particular.

Post it. If it gets personal and petty/starts breaking site rules a site mod will close it or delete it or both. I have a RL I desperately need to get back to so it probably won't be me. But understand I have people asking me to stop THIS thread. So I don't think it's prophecy to say it probably won't last long. But who knows? Try it.

<Snipped quote by LegendBegins>

Okay but that's not what was discussed. The point of this site is roleplay, and nobody in question right now ever hurt those fundamentals. People went to the status bar because it seems other methods have failed (largely on account of being deleted for no reason lol) and it reaches the largest amount of people without shitting up IC. Banning people for OOC/Meta critique on the other hand is actually very damaging to the fundamental of the site: roleplay. There is evidently a lot more trolling from the people with ban privileges than the people without.

And pardon me but how does:

<Snipped quote>

or:

<Snipped quote>

or my personal favourite:

<Snipped quote>

qualify as good faith? To me it seems like most people were only following the tone set by this (and that's just the first page), and to remove posts for following the example set by moderation seems nonsensical at the very least.

That's me reacting to bad faith with the same. You don't get to take shots at me without risking getting some eye rolls. You've trolled me for literally years. This isn't new to you.

<Snipped quote by Skullwombat>

Every single person who has posted something personal about me today doesn't know me and has never spoken to me outside of site staff. If even then. So...at this point all I can do is let the vocal and angry vent. They'll assume what they want. About me in particular.

Post it. If it gets personal and petty/starts breaking site rules a site mod will close it or delete it or both. I have a RL I desperately need to get back to so it probably won't be me. But understand I have people asking me to stop THIS thread. So I don't think it's prophecy to say it probably won't last long. But who knows? Try it.

One last question, then.

In what section of the site do you think would be most appropriate for this? Off-topic, support or RPdiscussion?

For what reason are bans left unexplained? Would it not be ideal to have a thread that names banned users, listing the reason for their ban, with evidence included, and also the banned users appeals against such bans? Full transparency on the matter would do much to settle fears of misuse of power, and would also deter mods from being tempted to abuse their power due to the nature of having the matter settled within full view of the role-playing public.

Iwaku has something like that that lists everything from spam bot perm bans to people who were banned because of drama or even pretending to be 18+ and joining a 18+ RP even though they're underage.

<Snipped quote by Skullwombat>
Post it. If it gets personal and petty/starts breaking site rules a site mod will close it or delete it or both. I have a RL I desperately need to get back to so it probably won't be me. But understand I have people asking me to stop THIS thread. So I don't think it's prophecy to say it probably won't last long. But who knows? Try it.

If people don't like the thread they're welcome not to view it. Shutting it down because a fraction of the site users don't know how to close a tab is counterintuitive. To do so would be a final and definitive proof that critique is punished, transparency is forbidden, questions cannot be asked.

@Ruby

So you guys got plans for convincing him to add some other people into that level of administrative ability? Because it seems like you're unnecessarily hobbling yourselves by relying on one guy for site updates.

Kindly don't delete my posts either. Sadly I didn't get the posts around it, but as you can see, it actually was posted here.

Ruby, I love this site. I love the people I write with and I want it to succeed. I've never personally spoken to you, so it's not as if I'm here for a personal vendetta. I'm not here in bad faith, but you've deleted my post anyway. The solution I proposed was far from radical; in fact, I think it would fix most of this issue. All any of us want is a little accountability and transparency.

Public discussion is necessary because it forces accountability. If mods or admins can't (or won't) stand by their actions in the public eye, then that gives the user base a reason to doubt the validity of those actions. That's why we're so suspicious of this "bring your issues to PMs" policy.

Kindly don't delete my posts either. Sadly I didn't get the posts around it, but as you can see, it actually was posted here.

Ruby, I love this site. I love the people I write with and I want it to succeed. I've never personally spoken to you, so it's not as if I'm here for a personal vendetta. I'm not here in bad faith, but you've deleted my post anyway. The solution I proposed was far from radical; in fact, I think it would fix most of this issue. All any of us want is a little accountability and transparency.

Public discussion is necessary because it forces accountability. If mods or admins can't (or won't) stand by their actions in the public eye, then that gives the user base a reason to doubt the validity of those actions. That's why we're so suspicious of this "bring your issues to PMs" policy.

Don't hijack my thread. Look at the OP and tell me what question you're asking. That's why you got deleted. That's why I'm gomma have to lock this thread soon.

Kindly don't delete my posts either. Sadly I didn't get the posts around it, but as you can see, it actually was posted here.

Ruby, I love this site. I love the people I write with and I want it to succeed. I've never personally spoken to you, so it's not as if I'm here for a personal vendetta. I'm not here in bad faith, but you've deleted my post anyway. The solution I proposed was far from radical; in fact, I think it would fix most of this issue. All any of us want is a little accountability and transparency.

Public discussion is necessary because it forces accountability. If mods or admins can't (or won't) stand by their actions in the public eye, then that gives the user base a reason to doubt the validity of those actions. That's why we're so suspicious of this "bring your issues to PMs" policy.

I'm just trying to keep this thread from getting hijacked. Was your post asking me a question? No? That's why it got deleted.

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

But it isn't, nothing about those posts was bad faith. Having feefees hurt doesn't qualify something for the label of bad faith. I might have trolled you (no memory of it lol, feel free to provide examples) but even if that is the case, that only seems to show the moderation is taking personal grievances into account for how they run the site which is plainly toxic

@Jerkchicken

Yes I am and yes it does.

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

One last question, then.

In what section of the site do you think would be most appropriate for this? Off-topic, support or RPdiscussion?

Off Topic.

I know I missed one or two but that's all the time I have for now.

I'll respond to any I missed later.

Anything you wanna add? PM me.

I am usually bent to keep to myself these days but this is getting a touch out of hand. So, I have a question: what do you believe the mods or admins could do to better give transparency to issues as well as bring the community together because it is desperately needed. Please note that this is what the staff could do, not what the members should do. That is another topic entirely.

I am asking this of Ruby alone, not other staff nor other members, so I ask both respectfully to keep their personal thoughts or comments out of it as to not add fuel to an already overly zealous fire. Thank you.

Transparency on what? Bans? The vast majority happen and no one bats an eye. And I'll talk for long periods of time (recently over an hour not even counting today) about bans and moderation. Come talk to us and we're generally pretty open.

These things happen behind the scenes a lot.

We don't want things to descend into public conflict over those bans. It used to be a Guild blood sport. I've considered a place where we post bans in an anonymous fashion but how easy is it to guess who got banned for what? Then we're dealing with someone claiming harassment because we made their ban public. (It's happened.)

I was transparent about the PW thread getting deleted. When asked, on the status bar.

Or claims of public humiliation.

No. We won't as a general rule publicly discuss bans. But if you really want to know...ask. DMs and PMs are open.

Before I open this up again:

Read the OP.

I will be enforcing those standards from here on in this thread.

Will the rules ever be re-written to be more clear, less vague, and less bad?

Attached to that, the enforcement of the existing rules has been almost completely random and this is largely from the way that its up to interpretation. Off the bat Rule 1 gets violated frequently, but maybe it doesn't because people who make jokes flaming each other excessively or use racial epithets go unpunished about as often as they get punished. The problem isn't really big on the site, but the Discord has the same rules and is run by the same people, and then some, and its way more rampant of an issue there. And Rule 2 was an addition that came entirely from staff mistakes and behavior being brought to public attention so the whole thing comes off as a dishonest rule with very obvious benefits for the staff to keep enforced. And even then its enforcement is almost random too. And Rule 4 is the worst one plainly with a gem like "determining if a ban was fair is a waste of staff's time". That's almost the same as saying that putting any thought into banning people in general is a waste of time.

I get that the rules were rewritten before, you're welcome for that by the way, but the job was done poorly and should be considered a failure. When compared to the old rules you can say, at best, that at least there are now more of them and they are slightly less vague. Simply improving over "be Fonz cool" doesn't really mean the rules are good. Or fair. The rules in sections 1, 2, and 4 all need to be updated and improved significantly and the enforcement of all the rules needs to be done more fairly (which improving the rules to be less vague would improve that front on its own). Someone getting punished for making a joke that breaks the rules one day but someone else not getting punished for making a joke that breaks the same rule the next day is kinda sad. It's almost like there is a caste system where specific people can get away with things that others cannot, seemingly based on their relationship with the staff. Giving biased people the power to ban someone for making an "offensive" joke on their own interpretation, and giving them permission to not even consider if its fair or not to make that ban, creates the environment that everyone is complaining about today. It's not a users problem nearly as much as its a staff/authority problem. Trolls, angry people, and disenfranchised people will always be in the userbase but a punitive system can be fixed.

Will the rules ever be re-written to be more clear, less vague, and less bad?

Attached to that, the enforcement of the existing rules has been almost completely random and this is largely from the way that its up to interpretation. Off the bat Rule 1 gets violated frequently, but maybe it doesn't because people who make jokes flaming each other excessively or use racial epithets go unpunished about as often as they get punished. The problem isn't really big on the site, but the Discord has the same rules and is run by the same people, and then some, and its way more rampant of an issue there. And Rule 2 was an addition that came entirely from staff mistakes and behavior being brought to public attention so the whole thing comes off as a dishonest rule with very obvious benefits for the staff to keep enforced. And even then its enforcement is almost random too. And Rule 4 is the worst one plainly with a gem like "determining if a ban was fair is a waste of staff's time". That's almost the same as saying that putting any thought into banning people in general is a waste of time.

I get that the rules were rewritten before, you're welcome for that by the way, but the job was done poorly and should be considered a failure. When compared to the old rules you can say, at best, that at least there are now more of them and they are slightly less vague. Simply improving over "be Fonz cool" doesn't really mean the rules are good. Or fair. The rules in sections 1, 2, and 4 all need to be updated and improved significantly and the enforcement of all the rules needs to be done more fairly (which improving the rules to be less vague would improve that front on its own). Someone getting punished for making a joke that breaks the rules one day but someone else not getting punished for making a joke that breaks the same rule the next day is kinda sad. It's almost like there is a caste system where specific people can get away with things that others cannot, seemingly based on their relationship with the staff. Giving biased people the power to ban someone for making an "offensive" joke on their own interpretation, and giving them permission to not even consider if its fair or not to make that ban, creates the environment that everyone is complaining about today. It's not a users problem nearly as much as its a staff/authority problem. Trolls, angry people, and disenfranchised people will always be in the userbase but a punitive system can be fixed.

Not currently being discussed.