Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

So, I see that it's confirmed that Kory's rules still stand.

The rules that directly caused the thread to erupt the way it did, because tensions only really began to heat up when Kory began to tell us we could no longer make posts like the one by Tropers/jjj2 on 350. ^note While it was absolutely inflamed by the Ag Prov stuff, the initial trigger was the spontaneous changing of the rules and the refusal to allow users to provide feedback; people only really shifted focus on page 352, and even then I can vouch that people were absolutely steamed about the whole "this is not a democracy" / "shut up or the thread gets locked" stuff

A post that was written very respectfully and objectively, with the only apparent issue being that Ag was called a transphobe — which was a relevant statement to try and make in the post as it resolved around the use of pronouns, not just a stray insult or someone trying to weigh in on EB.

I understand that the rules are not up for debate, and that it's most definitely not the mod team's fault (I'm well aware that Kory changed things unilaterally and that there's no going back if the admins insist on it). That's upsetting but there's no use debating over something that won't ever change; it's just a waste of everyone's time.

However, I still feel like we're dancing around the issue that is the fact that the rules are incredibly vague and boil down to what's essentially a vibe-check judgement call (which was a big issue with how Kory handled issues for the brief time he did moderation). All Tropers/jjjj2 actually did was provide a factual correction while briefly noting that they weren't there to defend Ag, and that was enough to trigger the minefield we'd all been unknowingly walking around. If a user can get told they're breaking a rule for something so minor and inconsequential, how will anyone be able to feel safe giving feedback in the future? Like, sure, I get that giving feedback has not been outright banned... but I for one won't want to do so anymore if I'm accidentally going to be breaking one of these rules simply because I said, IDK, that I think a mod was a little too hasty with thumps or that a mistake was made in the EB process. I can't imagine others will feel safe either (heck, I'm technically staff now, and if I would feel unsafe I can't imagine how others would feel)

So yes, please clarify so that we all understand what's actually against the rules now. If someone disputes a thump or thread lock, might they suddenly be running afoul of the "discussing the moderation" rule? If they have a concern about anything Edit Banned related, are they suddenly "weighing in on bans"?

Being open to feedback doesn't mean much if we're no longer actually allowed to give it without getting thumped or worse if we so much as use the wrong wording, y'know? (And while I don't think any of the mods here would be as trigger-happy as Kory and Klay, increased admin pressure will likely mean an increased pressure to take action if rules are being broken.)

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 17th 2023 at 5:31:27 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'm chiming in despite being otherwise inactive to agree that the thumping of some of those posts, especially wisewillow's post, was unnecessary and excessive as someone who also had the chance to read them before the thumps. Pointing out the inconsistencies, rhetorical downplaying of the past, and persistent failure to address the actual issues that led to the previous backlash seems appropriate and very much within the scope of the conversation, as it's about whether or not Fighteer's re-entrance is an actual example of rehabilitation and accountability in line with what is demanded from the rest of the user base, often for far less harmful conduct and policy violations.

Basically it all goes back to what WarJay (and Silasw) has asked about already (and for the third time, no less): what are users allowed/not allowed to bring up as part of their concerns regarding mod conduct and behavior in this thread? You can even add whizzerd's admission of hesitancy in even responding to a direct request of details on past incidents as being emblematic of this lack of clarity. This is crucial information (though I expect there's about to be a huge gulf in what the users believe is valid and what the admins/mods consider acceptable), without which people will continue to enter convos in this thread in what they believe to be good faith just for the thump hammer (or a ban) to come their way, exacerbating the image of a mod/admin team unwilling to listen to good faith criticism and airing of concerns.

I'll even extend this to the conversation on the scope of Fighteer's activities in his official capacity as a mod. In response to someone asking for more specifics as to what "limiting himself to wiki and support mod roles" means, he wrote "Basically, I'll help out as needed...there should be fewer large gaps to cover," before pivoting to discussing being less aggro outside of his mod role. This was a vague response. Does that mean he's going to just be involved in the backend? Does it include moderating and dealing with user ban evaluations? I don't know everything mod activities and responsibilities entail, but the general point is there still isn't much detail about what users should expect from a "back but reduced activity" version of Fighteer, which is necessary for people to evaluate whether or not he's overstepping his authority and not living up to the promises of good behavior moving forward. Since comparing the two is effectively the only way to "hold him accountable" in this arrangement.

so if i think a mod wrongly thumped a post, I'm meant to make an appeal directly to that mod via P Ms now instead of discussing it publicly in this thread? Do I have that right? If so, how is that going to work?

Is that not what happened (just in public) on the previous page? Of course the mod that did the thumping isn't going to think they were unjust, otherwise they wouldn't have done the thumping in the first place. Fighteer explained that all of the thumped posts contained personal attacks and therefore were in violation of site policy, but see the first paragraph of this post which echoes the sentiments of other users. There's clearly a disagreement here, which is why this thread was even made in the first place, to see if disagreement between mods' perception of fair and just matched the wider community's. Y'know, consensus. Elaborating further what it was in each post that constituted a personal attack would help or even elaborating in general what the admins/mods believe constitutes legitimate criticism vs personal attacks as was previously asked would be helpful.

And to the second part, I wasn't asking about "where do complaints about individual mods go, both in their role as mods and outside"? I'm aware that the new plan is to funnel those to private messages sent to the admins. My comment was that moving forward, what are the rules of engagement for this thread as it relates to criticism of moderation? What is even the function of this thread after this convo eventually peters out?

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 17th 2023 at 5:38:38 AM

I still want answers to my questions, because I do not feel they were answered clearly. I want specific, clear, unambiguous answers to each of these questions.

Thump appeals should go to the thumping moderator, that's why there is the auto-PM. Complaints about abuse of moderation power need to go to the site contsct form/admins, as stated. Not to the thread. I'l ask about jjjj's post and ^.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Speaking for myself? The mods and admins no longer have any modicum of trust from me as an individual, and they've made it clear both through this thread and other areas that they don't care about that—so long as we accept that they're in charge and that we can't do anything about it, then they don't care what I or anyone else think of them or how positive feelings towards them are, they just want us in line.

They've made it increasingly clearer that they'll rule how they wish and that if anyone expresses displeasure in a way the mods or admins don't like, they'll just silence the dissent with mass thumps or bans for subjective reasons that they won't elaborate upon, and nothing at this juncture is being offered to improve that viewpoint.

They have vocalized on the public TV Tropes Discord server—which is completely accessible by any user here, so no, there are no private messages being shared—that they don't feel this event is a "large" deal, saying that in the past of the website, quote: "people have got angry and left. We got through it." Furthermore, "the Fetish Fuel cut and Google Incident were far larger than what we're dealing with now...there is a massively disproportionate upset going on that is caused by proximity. It's understandable, but it's something we need to take into consideration. Recency bias and all that. Whether (Fighteer) stays or leaves, whether AgProv is bounced or not, whether people quit in outrage, TV Tropes will continue to operate. It'll be fine."

This is the mindset the mods and admins are truly approaching this situation with. Not "let's work things out for the best for everyone", but rather, "this means nothing, a bunch of people can get mad and leave and we'll survive it, this is disproportionate upset, we're not obligated to make you trust or feel comfortable with us."

Oh, and Fighteer also said on that very same public Discord server that, quote:

When I simply asked, quote, "Soooo it's completely up to you to decide who is and isn't "acceptable" as a mass rage target?", the only response I received was not from Fighteer, but from an apparently-offended wingedcatgirl sneering, quote, "It's certainly not up to you.", as if that was anything close to a reasonable counterpoint. As if my comment at all indicated that I desired to hold power over everyone else to arbitrarily choose who are "acceptable rage targets" and silence people when they step out of line— unlike wingedcatgirl or Fighteer, this is not a power I possess nor care to. It is, however, a power they have made exceedingly clear they do possess and are happy to indulge in with all the recent thumps.

Know what this says to me? That what is and isn't "acceptable" to not just Fighteer, but other mods as well, has no objective, or even borderline understandable, criteria. If the mods/admins don't like someone? Go nuts talking trash about them. If it's someone they like? Watch your mouth or you'll get thumped. If you question their reasonings? They're going to snap at you that "it's not up to you" to decide how things work.

The attitudes which the mods and admins are beginning to display—more than just Fighteer—are, frankly, distressingly oppressive for a site that's been very inclusive, and the constant, constant downplaying, goal-shifting, and excuse-shoveling they've thrown our way indicates to me that a chunk of them have little-to-no-respect for their userbase beyond people to lord over.

What this event reveals to me, personally? Is that there will be no punishment for Fighteer. Now, or ever. Next time he does something bad, the goalposts will likely just shift again, and if you get upset about it, you'll be thumped and shuffled off and everyone will carry on as if nothing happened. "TV Tropes will continue to operate. It'll be fine." Because that's exactly what happened this time. We were promised that consequences for Fighteer would be wrought when he returned. He has returned, the time for consequences has come, and look at that: there are none being handed out. Just vague promises that he'll "limit" his reach while nonetheless still having the capacity to hold his mod status over others. Why would I trust that he'll be "monitored" and properly punished "next time" when it didn't happen this time?

This is revealing of a wider issue. More sensible mods are reducing their roles in the site or abandoning their status as mods entirely because of these sudden, ridiculous changes. The admins think 'we need a firm hand to lay down the law again. Bring back that guy who a bunch of people think is a bully.' The mods (that are still around) think 'stop talking about (X topic) except in terms we dictate arbitrarily or we'll make you stop talking about it.' All that we, as non-mod users, are supposed to do to combat abusive moderators is send private messages to the admins about moderators abusing their power and pray that the admins—the same admins who re-introduced themselves to the community at large by mass thumping and banning and locking threads—are even reading the messages, let alone doing anything about them. And with more sensible mods leaving by the day, we're gonna be left with more and more people in power who think siccing "mean Fighteer" on users is a reasonable response.

I like this site and hope to continue to participate in the corners I enjoy, I do. But until some major, major steps of good faith are taken by the mods and admins? I'll be assuming none from either. And according to them, that's fine. It's not their job to "assuage our concerns", after all. Just to keep us quiet if we step out of line. They're right that we can't do anything as non-mod users to truly change their decisions, but I can certainly voice my discomfort and, bluntly, disgust with said decisions for as long as I have a voice on this site. How much longer that will be remains to be seen.

Tonight I dine on monkey soup.

While all the people who argue Fighter must be punished are right in some way about showing how he has quite a history of long and bad arguments, he has made an apology attempt, and isn't anywhere seeing exactly returning back to his old ways immediately.

Now, I know you can justify a crime of someone who has done for a long history, but if they suddenly turn 180 degrees and actually stick with the turnover, how can you justify it for long?

If Fighteer is a mod who once fought many rulebreakers that he becomes just like them, but then accused by a plenty of people with no mercy, wouldn't taking that too far would make those people end up becoming just like him? Because all I seen right now is some criticism trying to silence him (even if it is futile, given the roles here).

As for me, I believe that all tropers (except for those who have severely, unrepentantly, and intentionally break the rules enough to be bounced) to have the rights to make good choices and be helpful to everyone. That includes me too.

I am just hoping we're not going to be disappointed with the moderator team's choices. There were two options: to ragequit or to accept it as it is. I feel like TV Tropes won't be the same with many of it's important and mainstay users out of the site, and it will take time for new active users and/or mods to become a mainstay and well-known, anyways.

Again, my stance stays; I don't want to jump the trigger and unknowingly becoming part of the site's downfall.

Edited by JustNormalMusicLover on Sep 17th 2023 at 7:44:12 PM

How many games got ported into Nintendo Switch? A lot of them.

If the policy is changing to have a complete lack of transparency on how these things are handled, than the minimum requirement to generate trust is to create clear, concise and specific rules that can be shown and handed out and reliably stuck to.

What counts as an attack? What counts as an acceptable hate target or not? What mechanism is in place to ensure that feedback is actually being looked at and/or considered? What systems exist to boot a mod or admin who is abusing their power? Hell, even stuff like “what counts as a double-post”. It’s all well and good to be like “we’re informal here, we don’t need to have a big list of rules”, but when you combine that with a situation like this one, it’s obviously just the mods running on vibes and not paying proper attention to consistency or optics.

Let’s use the double-post thing. Sometimes, people will get thumped for doing a double-post within six hours, even if they’re clearly different topics or a pivot. Other times, a double-post within half an hour is left alone for no apparent reason. At least some of this is clearly because of reporting (if no one reports one and a mod doesn’t look at a page, of course it won’t get thumped) but other times, there’s no clear rhyme or reason behind it.

A lack of transparency on the process necessarily must come with clearly enumerated and clearly stated rules with consistent and clear standards that apply to everyone, including the mods. Doing otherwise, especially when the only place where this stuff can be discussed is under an incredibly excessive 12 hour slow-mode is ridiculous, because then there’s no moral, ethical or factual defense against “you’re just picking on people you don’t like and are refusing to allow anyone to speak in an effective manner because you’re offended that people are questioning your actions.”

The 12 hour slow mode thing really, really doesn’t help. That’s crazy excessive and it’s a clear and very effective tool to silence dissent because it makes it nearly impossible to actually address everything that’s being said and it makes it very easily to overlook specific and detailed points. But it also can backfire, because it can result in people seeing a page of posts before they’re thumped…and then it consistently gets brought up for hours because of the limitations and it keeps that problem in the mind. So it’s a tool of silencing that also acts to ensure that the issues keep getting brought up over and over and over.

If the mods want to ensure trust while simultaneously refusing to explain most of their decisions in a public space while also refusing to take any clear or transparent actions in terms of mod overreach, then clear, concise and consistent rules must exist and be easily accessible for everyone on the forum. Refusing to state the rules while also directly stating an intent to move towards a complete lack of transparency is difficult to mistake for anything but a dislike of pushback and refusing to understand that maybe the users have legitimate grievances about this situation.

Not Three Laws compliant.

A simple question: Is consistency and transparency that much to ask?

Also, Ravok, it's too bad this isn't affecting the revenue like the Google Incident and Fetish Fuel situation. Then something might happen.

(Also, I don't mind slow mode, but IMO 8 or even 6 hours is what it should be.)

Edited by ACW on Sep 17th 2023 at 9:12:05 AM

CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts

I think I've reached my limit. From start to finish this whole thing has been the either admins or moderators telling us that they can do whatever they want and don't need to listen to us. The only concession we've gotten out of this has been making Kory apologize and step back from being a mod. That's it.

The rule changes Kory implemented still stand. Fighteer is back and despite promising he'd face consequences when he returned he hasn't, just told that he'll be "limited" without any specifics about what limits will be placed on him at all. The only limits have been placed on this thread by making us wait hours and hours just to say anything in our only way to voice our concerns, especially since the ATT thread is still gone, haven't gotten any word on why they did that either. Mods thumping posts just for saying that they don't think Fighteer will be any better this time, and no, these weren't thumping personal attacks, I know several of the thumped posts were just skepticism and that's it. Several mods have either reduced their involvement or outright resigned over this while those that remain are very keen to remind us that we can't do anything about them. Kory might've apologized for his behavior but all I'm seeing is that the other mods are copying it.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that the reason why our concerns aren't being addressed is because they don't want to address them, they want to be able to do anything without facing any actual accountability. I no longer thrust the administration at all. I want to keep using TV Tropes, but I can't think of any reason to stay anymore.

REALITY IS AN ILLUSION, THE UNIVERSE IS A HOLOGRAM, BUY GOLD BYEEEE! | She/Her

Alright, so it seems that the mods and admins are trying to end the discussion now and that they have no intention of changing their mind on anything we have concerns about, so I'll just give my last thoughts on the entire matter. This is probably my last post on this thread (unless something else start), so here is what I think about:

Kory: Despite kickstarting the entire thing, the fact that he apologized and is stepping back from active moderation is great and I don't much to complain about him now. I have no issue with his work as a coder, so I will be happy to see him improve the site.

The new rules: Since the higher up have decided to keep them, I'm gonna comment that I think they are a terrible idea. Like I and many other have said, the mods and admins should try to restore our trust in them and insisting on less transparency is not great. They are very vague and as such prone to abuse.

Asking the admins in private: True, I no longer trust the mod team. I trust the admin team even less though, so I maintain that it's a bad idea. If I have a problem with a mod, I'm more likely to just stop using the site entirely rather than report it and pray that it works out well.

Dev Klay: I would have liked an apology, but so long as he truly steps away from active moderation, I can live with that. Doesn't mean I'm gonna trust him or the admin team, but whatever, I don't think his apology would have changed much at this point.

Fighteer: With his comment, I think I get it. In Parable post, we were told that he would be "limiting himself to wiki and support mod roles", which I assumed meant "Fighteer will basically be an engineer" which seemed weird because... why not make him an engineer then? But then Fighteer comment that he will still do everything, just less. I appreciate the clarification, but it means that I don't have much reason to believe the December mess won't happen again. It means less burn out and that's great for him and everyone else, but apart from that...

Regardless, I want to address the "give him another chance" plea. If Fighteer's first comment after coming back was an apology and clearly showed he understood why we were upset, I would have gladly given him another chance. However, it's not what happened and the fact that it seems that he can't understand how his comments on asexual people were harmful is... not a good look, to say the least. I don't have any reason trust him, so I won't trust him. If he truly changes, then I will gladly eat my words and apologise to him, but I'm not holding my breath. Though, I won't be asking for him to retire or anything since it's clear the admins don't want it.

The admins can do whatever they want: We all understand that, there is no need to repeat it over and over again. But do you understand that trying to push the envelope too much will eventually backfire? There're already users leaving the site. What if it spreads offsite and pushes people away from this site? This would seriously reduce the numbers of people interested in participating and as such a loss of revenue. Sure, for now it is just a few users leaving, if keeps happening, it will get worse. So please, before trying to force something against the wishes of the users, always ask yourself "Is it really worth it? Can't it backfire in a horrible way?".

12 hours limit: I don't the buy the "we are doing that to read every post" because our concerns are barely addressed, so yeah, I think it's bad. Maybe a shorter one would be better, but... if the mods are trying to end the discussion, I don't think they will change it.

ATT thread: Not much to add beside what other users said: it's a bad look, an explaination should have given, it doesn't help me to trust the higher up....

Recent thumps: They happened while I was sleeping, so I can't judge whether they were deserved or not (though I trust other users more than the mod team, so...). Regardless, it's once again not a good look.

In conclusion: Do I trust the mods? Not really. Do I trust Fighteer? No. Do I trust the admins? Even less. Will another fiasco like this happen again? Probably. Will I leave the site? Maybe not because I truly loved this site. Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding reasons to stay.

Edited by TotemGenitor on Sep 17th 2023 at 4:08:48 PM

Less "probably" and more "absolutely", I think, and when it does those that implemented these decisions will have no one to blame but themselves, whatever they try to claim to avoid admitting it.

Not more I can say than I said in my farewell post. I'm sorry to see that this is the path the administration has chosen to take, and I can't help but feel like it's a disappointing case of kicking the can down the road. Everyone here has said it so much more eloquently than I have.

Let it be said that this feels like a colder edge to the friendliness of the community that once was. I have no intention of doing something stupid to get myself banned or thumped, so I'm going to end my post here. No need for another 12 hour cooldown; I've said what I needed.

Agreed.

Edited by SilverCrown on Sep 17th 2023 at 4:19:18 PM

Yeah, I would love to be able to trust the mods, but none of this is helping. I personally am not leaving tvt, but I can't blame anyone who is

(Also slowmode is fine in practice but 12 hours is too long)

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

I also agree with what most have said here. Overall, this was two shitshows and a half. I honestly cannot believe that all of this happened sorely because the Admins couldn't be grateful that a fellow troper wanted to help them by informing them of a mistake in EB. Man, what a disappointment.

Overall with this as much as I wanted to trust the mods here the percentage of me doing that is very low right now. If they want to gain our trust back they have to prove it by their actions. If not well my point stands. They are so far making everything worse and it if keeps going it's not going to be good.

Ravok pretty much said everything up and I am extremely disappointed as well because of how many users who are good leaving here completely or entirely.

Edited by Echidna on Sep 17th 2023 at 1:35:55 PM

Same. I came back here yesterday after seeing Fighteer active in the forums again, and figured there’d be context here. I caught up in the evening. Most of it had played out by then.

I don’t have the energy to write out anything too specific or detailed right now, and I’m not sure I can say anything that hasn’t been said, but I’m worried about where things are going. Things seemed better since December - definitely less stressful to browse the forums. I was too late to the last debacle in December to weigh in, but trust me, I would have I if I’d known about it.

There’s not much we can do now except wait and see, but I don’t have a lot of confidence that things will be different next time something comes up. I’d love to be proven wrong, but it’s hard to relax. It takes time to earn back broken trust - you can’t just demand it back immediately. I hope the admins and more will put in the work to earn it back, but all eyes are on you now. If you’re not serious about keeping your promises, people will know.

I’ve been on the site since 2008 and on the forums since about 2010. I’m not a big part of cleanup or maintenance or anything, but I’ve done enough lurking in those sections to see how much work goes into it. If people who are heavily involved with maintenance are leaving, that’s going to affect things going forward, and not in a good way. I don’t blame people for leaving over this. I’ll be keeping an eye on things.

Edited by SapphireBlue on Sep 17th 2023 at 10:34:31 AM

Yeah, trust isn't served by the authority figure saying "I will try to be better" immediately endorsing thumps of people critical of him (who weren't delivering personal insults or attacks).

Endorsing everything Ravok said. It's clear that someone doesn't think they did anything wrong, and the instant an apology isn't immediately accepted, it turns vindictive and defensive. Now we're losing good users and it's only a matter of time until worse happens.

Count me as extremely disappointed. For many of us, this matter isn't closed and we'll be keeping eyes on it.

I think it is simply mind boggling that after Parable delivered a good post detailing some progress forward, it took just a few other posts to dash that to pieces. Consider that reparation gone now. The mass thumps were a horrible look. Other posts reflect a constant "I've done nothing wrong except care too much."

Ravok's said it best. The broken stair issue remains unrepaired.

Edited by Lightysnake on Sep 17th 2023 at 10:32:54 AM

Disappointed in the behavior exhibited.

So if a mod makes a mistake in a response to an appeal, we're not allowed to say anything about it. And if we have a problem with a mod, the only person we're allowed to discuss it with is the admins, who have proven themselves to be totally untrustworthy for anything that isn't coding-related.

I hope you understand why we're so upset about that. The old system worked fine. If a moderator missed something on EB, users could point it out and mods were free to do whatever they want with that advice. It's not like users were mini-modding.

Maybe mod abuse discussions got out of hand sometimes (though they were rare), but this thread could still serve as a way to collect our thoughts before making the appeal to the admins. Basically, it sounds like you're trying to make it harder for the community to come together if they have a problem with the moderation.

Then you say "you won't get in trouble simply by asking", which implies that these things are allowed after all so long as you don't go overboard, which is very different from what Kory said (that we weren't allowed to give any comments about suspensions or concerns about moderators).

If people can't publicly talk about any mistakes mods could've made in threads like EB, then what is this thread for now? The chances of people actually going to the admins in case of any problems is slim considering the way they've acted.

Mods, admins, all of you should be ashamed. Disgusting display of behavior right here.

Edited by Wafer on Sep 17th 2023 at 1:15:13 AM

Looking at this from where I am right now, it seems like the staff feel attacked. It feels like the staff want more control over the site and what is said here and when there was pushback to how that was rolled out the admins lashed out. After that it seems like the staff just want us to accept the new changes without question and when we didn't they've lashed out again. Let me say that the pushback on this is not an attack on the staff, independent of anyone's personal issues with any specific member of the staff the main issue here is a lack of trust in the staff as a whole. These are genuine issues that will affect the culture of the site as a whole and at the moment it feels like the staff is in too much of a defensive mindset to properly deal with them. I'm stepping away from the site for a while, following this drama has taken a toll on my mental health. My hope is that by the time I come back things will have calmed down enough for genuine progress to be made Good luck everyone.

Hope your prepared for an unforgettable luncheon

It seems apparent to me that any attempts to reason with moderation are doomed to fail for the simple reason that the strongest appeal any of us can make is "these issues are making a significant number of users feel unsafe and unwelcome on your site", and the mods and admins have made it quite clear that their response is "well, if people feel unsafe, that's their problem, not ours, door's that way."

Which is an absolutely repulsive position for people who ostensibly seek to host a "friendly, civil forum" to take, but in the end, what can be done about it? Nothing, really. As they're so keen to remind us, their word is law.

Edited by Perseus on Sep 17th 2023 at 7:19:58 PM

Trans rights are human rights.

So if I understand correctly, the rule now is we can no longer discuss the behavior of specific mods here in the thread, but we can discuss mod behavior without mentioning names, as in "Should a moderator be doing this" type of discussion?

One thing that I think needs to be emphasized is that the system only works if users trust the mods... and this trust is quickly beginning to crumble as the statements continue to be vague or concerning or both.

Do you all remember when Yack Fest exploded a few years ago because nobody trusted the mods to help in a situation that required hollers? People had been genuinely scared that they'd just nuke Yack Fest entirely, and that fear only created chaos when things went out of control. Users ended up suspended because they'd fought back out of the belief that they were being treated unfairly because the mods failed to explain themselves to the community when threads got locked. And while some of this distrust was unwarranted at the time, the fact of the matter is that everyone fully believed something worse would happen if the mods got involved.

Or what about what happened in December? Until they were finally asked about it, users believed that the admins would not be willing to de-mod anyone abusing their powers. Sure, right now we're experiencing a scenario where said mod has been asked to come back... but if nothing else they at least claim they'll help if something happens. Before December however, people had fully been convinced that asking the admins would lead to something drastic and terrifying, which is why the situation was allowed to fester.

In short, to actually ensure things go smoothly and that no further drama happens, users have to be able to trust the staff. If they believe that getting staff involved will either not work or lead to a bigger problem, they'll go back to letting issues fester until they explode. Nobody wants that. If you all genuinely want to work with us here, we'll need a little bit more help with actually trusting that issues can be resolved adequately under these new rules.

For instance, I have doubts that privately messaging a mod about a thump will actually work; many people (myself included) get anxious when it comes to private messages, and if the thumping mod maintains that they're correct even if they're acting out of bias or emotion... Well, the user is more likely to end up in EB then they are to reason their way out of the thump, no matter how good a point they have. Wouldn't it at least be fair to say that we could holler the post instead to get another mod's opinion or something? Having us be forced to directly confront the mod who enacted the thump in the first place is scary and it increases the odds of things getting worse for the user in question. Now, do I believe most of these mods would be unreasonable and nasty over messages? No, I don't — but I also believe that the risk is still there.

I'm also aware that people are going to be anxious when it comes to dealing with Fighteer. People had issues with it before all of this went down, and now we know he has admin backing — as well as the fact that many people don't find his posts very convincing, even if he truly does intend to improve and redeem himself. The site has been running perfectly smoothly while he was gone and people had a better view of the mod team during this time as well, so the fact that this is happening at all is making people feel like the admins care more about asserting dominance than actually resolving any issues.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 17th 2023 at 5:50:47 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

same question. Also, what's the final call in the ATT reports— how should they be done now? if i wanted to report someone, can i do it publicly?

i just want to be clear on the new rules since there was a lot of confusion and it's a very long thread

Edited by Tremmor19 on Sep 17th 2023 at 5:57:18 AM