Kijin, I think you need to step back for a minute and calm down.
I believe this was handled in as timely a fashion as you could reasonably expect. You've aired your grievances about the timeliness of the action(s) taken, and your claimed order (I'm not privy to the various conversations involved, so IDK). Maybe it's time to take a deep breath and walk away for the moment.
Bull****, we respond to adbots before I can even get to my reported posts. You can't for a second tell me 5 hours is a reasonable window of time... but also the window of time isn't even the forefront of what is so morally distressing in this (but for that it was just OK that a person baited a person in the OP's condition for over a day until it was complained about here). The only person raising an primary issue of time is r~ in regards to my input, which is a strawman to the real issues here.
I've pretty calmly outlined what is wrong here and what should be done about it several times. I don't understand your confusion.
Fair enough, I guess I just misunderstood your argument. Still, I don't think this is a matter of priorities, just a matter of miscommunication (as Sene and Viricide explained earlier). It was a mistake, no doubt, but given that the flame infraction wasn't necessarily an urgent thing I don't see anything particularly amoral about it all. Justice has now been done (NavyJoe has his infraction) and there are discussions started on how to prevent these problems in the future (both users flaming/bullying potentially unstable members AND miscommunication among the staff). Sincerely, thanks for bringing those shortcomings to our attention since they really were problems or oversights that needed to be addressed. Otherwise, it seems your dismissal was tangential to this whole mess.
How do you not understand what is amoral in this situation? The NavyJoe issue took 5 pages and two thread closures before it was even hinted at being discussed. My staff removal took one thread closure, a PM, and a few hours. Do you not see the issue with that as a priority? Do you not see that as a moral issue? A miscommunication doesn't require 5 pages, three threads, 1+unknown# PMs, ignorance in the mod lounge to an issue, and a sudden shock only after being raised at least twice outside of the initial discussion.
You can't expect your order of priorities to apply to everyone, Kijin, no matter the dilemma. I'm sure rianalnn was cracking jokes at the situations expense and planning a "I'm the friendly admin," trolling venture as soon as he was humanly able. If he could turn back time and get to it a moment sooner then I am confident he would have done so. You're not being fair.
Rianalnn and I are a lot alike, you know. What you say to him is doubly offensive to myself. The only difference between the two of us is that I removed myself from the staff so I could continue my questionable behavior, and he hasn't. So watch what you say, because I have feelings too.
Those of us in here supporting you aren't "kicking and screaming". We're cultivating the garden. Join us. You can do so much more good for this site, and yourself, if you drop this issue and move on.
Also, lol at autist flash mob.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
How do you not understand what is amoral in this situation? The NavyJoe issue took 5 pages and two thread closures before it was even hinted at being discussed. My staff removal took one thread closure, a PM, and a few hours. Do you not see the issue with that as a priority? Do you not see that as a moral issue?
Right, but your issue was simpler because there was no miscommunication. Even after those NavyJoe threads popped up, it was still unclear who should give that infraction. Didn't help that there were no admins and no WCT mods online at the time.
Obviously I wasn't involved in your dismissal, but I think it's fair to say that it was a long time coming, so once the decision was made things apparently moved along quite quickly.
I guess you're ultimately right that giving NavyJoe an infraction is a moral issue, but that oversight has been corrected and discussion has started on how to prevent that from happening in the future.
Would you agree that contacting lone gentleman directly should have taken priority over infracting NavyJoe?
I understand where you're coming from regarding the mixed up priorities, and I understand your points about the way your situation was handled. I obviously had no hand in that and have nothing to say about it. I'm just trying to make the point that at least some things were properly prioritized, i.e. contacting a user reaching out for help.
Yes, despite taking 5 hours (and this was not really an issue I've been harping on either), that lone gentleman was contacted above all else should not even be a question. If you'd failed in that, and were still on staff, would be absurd.
The other stuff, we're on the same boat. A lot of the staff are. I'm asking people to take accountability for a moral shortfall that required a 7 page thread, a three page thread, PMs, multiple thread closures, and ignorance much of the while. I would like accountability for being attacked because I apparently wasn't mad enough yesterday, despite being massively and very visibly so. I would like some transparancy the users of this site were promised very long ago. And most of all, I don't want to see anyone else on this forum be bullied for being at the very end of their rope, when they are very obviously in a precocious position, and even more-so in a situation where people's lives may be at stake.
My staffing (and lack thereof) is a measuring stick against the priority of a moral issue with extremely serious potential real-world consequences; I outlined in my OP that, even if the letter of how I lost my bold username was not true, the spirit behind it was. There's a moral issue present here and that there's a segment of staff that does not even acknowledge it is very distressing and calls into question the very leadership of the site itself.
Obviously I wasn't involved in your dismissal, but I think it's fair to say that it was a long time coming, so once the decision was made things apparently moved along quite quickly.
That has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you're harping on it. That you don't see the swiftness of removal measured against the almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction as the cause in light of it is what causes me to question the staffs', and subsequently your, as we're now having this discussion, morality.
The staff is supposed to be our guideline for these types of things. I was asked to leave because I didn't meet them, despite upholding a moral standard in this discussion that ultimately caused me to be destaffed. Would you not say that a multiple failure in the same regard on an issue bigger than name calling is a larger issue?
Bull****, we respond to adbots before I can even get to my reported posts. You can't for a second tell me 5 hours is a reasonable window of time... but also the window of time isn't even the forefront of what is so morally distressing in this (but for that it was just OK that a person baited a person in the OP's condition for over a day until it was complained about here). The only person raising an primary issue of time is r~ in regards to my input, which is a strawman to the real issues here.
I've pretty calmly outlined what is wrong here and what should be done about it several times. I don't understand your confusion.
Ria wouldn't have received the post reports from WCT. Admins only get reports if they're listed as a mod for that forum or there's no mods listed at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
That has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you're harping on it. That you don't see the swiftness of removal measured against the almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction as the cause in light of it is what causes me to question the staffs', and subsequently your, as we're now having this discussion, morality.
The staff is supposed to be our guideline for these types of things. I was asked to leave because I didn't meet them, despite upholding a moral standard in this discussion that ultimately caused me to be destaffed. Would you not say that a multiple failure in the same regard on an issue bigger than name calling is a larger issue?
Now I'm confused. I didn't bring up your dismissal except when you referred to it first. In fact, wasn't that the whole point of your previous argument? That you were demodded more quickly than NavyJoe received his infraction?
I'm also confused why you're now talking about an "almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction" when you yourself agreed that dealing with lone gentleman directly was obviously the most pressing need. I think we did a pretty good job of that. Secondary to that was dealing with NavyJoe, which was necessary, but not urgent. Perhaps it should have been more urgent than demodding you, but that's where the miscommunication comes in.
Maybe we're miscommunicating right now because I feel like you agree with me.
It is a combination of things. Individually, those are all things that happened that make up a larger picture that I have outlined in all but by bullet point in older posts. We may just be walking in circles now.
My being destaffed is irrelevant to my argument. The fact that I was destaffed and that my destaffing was deemed a more pressing matter than discussing NavyJoe's myriad outbursts is what is repugnant. Are we on the same plain now?
edit; I can't stay online right now because I have real life engagements. If I have a window to check up on my phone, I will, but real life comes first.
You commented "we both agree it's a long time coming."
Ad hominem.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you're welcome to tell me I'm wrong on that point. Does that even change anything?
I didn't see that you edited this until now, so, yeah, I see where you're coming from. I still don't think you have a reason to believe one was deemed more pressing than the other. Just because you were demodded before NavyJoe got an infraction doesn't mean booting you is more important. It just means booting you was faster largely due to the miscommunication that occurred with NavyJoe's post. That's it.
Well, thank you for your service Kijin. I hope you stick around so we can quip about what card will be the new hotness and what is a future flop but we'll "sell, sell, SELL!" If it means anything to you, I felt you did an outstanding job here, probably better than most.
The same number of times as a regular user. After that would be an administrative review. An administrative review is basically a sit down to discuss the rules and policies of your organization and make sure everything is understood. After a while even the most straight and narrow employee will lose sight of what their company stands for and what the company expects of them.
I suggest that a panel of users on every level come together and discuss what it is that users expect from MTGS and what the staff desires from the users. In the spirit of friendliness, transparency, and responsibility the panel meeting should be able to be viewed by all. A special IRC chatroom for example.
I come back from vacation and see that Rax and Kijin have stepped down. What the **** is going on.
I liked you Kijin, even if you didn't like me. I think what has been said was the right thing and if stepping down is going to make you happy, it has to be done.
Thanks for putting so much time into making this MTGSalvation and not MTGCesspool. In the end we will just all have to "deal with it".
The same number of times as a regular user. After that would be an administrative review. An administrative review is basically a sit down to discuss the rules and policies of your organization and make sure everything is understood. After a while even the most straight and narrow employee will lose sight of what their company stands for and what the company expects of them.
To be fair, that's not too far off from what Kijin's history has been like. Not to delve too deeply into it (since I'm neither on staff nor involved in any of what's happening and I doubt it's even my place to say this much), but Kijin has been almost demodded more than a few times. In each case, the same issues of his demeanor with users came up. Whether or not this situation is enough to be the straw breaking the camel's back isn't for me to say. I don't know enough about what went down in the past couple days to comment, though I didn't want to provide a little bit of context as far as Kijin's previous issues are concerned.
So, without wanting to write an essay on what I just read, I'd like to say one thing:
The only thing that should be remembered here is that if Kijin didn't care about this site, or the people that posted on it, he wouldn't have moderated it for 6+ years.
As someone who actually has a well groomed neck beard, I'm glad that he's done this for so long, and I know that he atleast for what this site was, or he'd never have done everything he's done.
Worst case scenario, he's said a few things in his history here that might have offend some people while doing all that he's done, but in the grand scheme of life, that's peanuts compared to all the great things he's done for this site, and even if I don't really frequent the portions of the site that he's moderated that often, I know that this site is a worse place without him, even if he offends some people.
Now I'm confused. I didn't bring up your dismissal except when you referred to it first. In fact, wasn't that the whole point of your previous argument? That you were demodded more quickly than NavyJoe received his infraction?
I'm also confused why you're now talking about an "almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction" when you yourself agreed that dealing with lone gentleman directly was obviously the most pressing need. I think we did a pretty good job of that. Secondary to that was dealing with NavyJoe, which was necessary, but not urgent. Perhaps it should have been more urgent than demodding you, but that's where the miscommunication comes in.
Maybe we're miscommunicating right now because I feel like you agree with me.
This mirrors my reading of the situation. There is no reason that the staff can't deal with multiple issues at the same time. Kijin seems to think that because actions taken against him occurred simultaneously with actions against arguably more egregious offenders, that he is being singled out or that the staff has lost their moral compass. I don't see why this has to be the case.
There is a process for everything which is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of the decision at hand. In the end all issues were dealt with. We have all seen the insane amount of pushback that a simple decision by the staff can have on these forums, so it doesn't surprise me that they acted cautiously. This caution may have meant a slower than ideal response to bad offenders, and a quicker than usual decision to remove what could be seen as a trouble moderator. Couple this all with the supposed miscommunication that went on and I don't think this whole situation is as bad as some are making it out to be.
Kijin has been a great part of this site, and his spot will never be filled. His knowledge of cards, trends, and formats made him great at this job in the market street. I have no interest in reading this thread, and I will not later, but I just want to say that this is no way to treat a great veteran member of the site. Rax and Kijin gone makes this place feel weird.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't mind my posts, they are probably just a product of gang violence
Really? This is your response to the accusation that you have a misguided concept of what is really important to your duties as moderator? In case you haven't noticed, other users and mods think the way this was handled is entirely incorrect too. But all you do is attack Kijin, which seems to help his argument that you just asked him to step down because you wanted him to step down and thought this was your chance.
Removing a moderator because of complaints by users who deserve to be infracted for worse in the same thread is a ludicrous judgement call, and I don't want you to brush that off because you seem to have an issue with some of the users telling you so.
just because u have a good history with Kijin doesn't mean that these actions weren't justified. u need to realize this. I was sent numerous PMs by Kijin, being accused of being homophobic while also being infracted for things that weren't warranted. and when i asked why, I was accused of trying to bait another user(which is an extremely subjective call). do u think those actions are befitting of a moderator? i certainly don't. and maybe if u were being harassed too, u would see the other side of the argument.
the bottom line is a moderator shouldn't have an agenda or any type of bias. why is it okay for one mod to belittle users while the others stay quiet? it isn't. i applaud the admin. for their actions. while u think others have a problem with this, u must also realize there are people like me that believe this is totally warranted.
kijin, when i joined this site I realized you had a great understanding of the game. after the way I was treated by you, however, I could never take this site seriously again if appropriate action was taken. u were genuinely trying to be hurtful and nasty for whatever reason.
realize that sometimes the problems we perceive in our environment really exist in us. you say this message board will never change, but maybe it will never change to what YOU want it to be, and I think that's a good thing. this place is a community, not one person's personal stomping ground.
that being said, there is no doubt your work was respected on MTGS. I think this thread is enough proof of that.
My personal shortcomings in respect to not being on staff are irrelevant to this discussion, rianalnn, and that's very disingenuous of you to bring them up.
I don't think you actually have a perspective of the situation. Your response time permitted two full pages to be posted before any response was made, the person attacking the unstable individual was not only not punished for his attack -- which could have lead to the deaths of others -- until after a **** show was raised here, but was not even repraised after raising a second thread in Community Issues. Not only that, but I made MULTIPLE report posts in that thread for users offering diagnostic and antagonistic advice to the user, which I have to assume were ignored as they were not apparent until this discussion began.
This is the one time your job mattered on a real world scale and you punished the one person speaking out actively against injustice while only responding to injustice after torches were brought out. You have no sense of propriety on a very real, very real-world consequential issue.
Saying, "Whoops, I screwed up!" when lives hung in the balance is not adequate. Were this just another cat and mouse "oh this guy didn't get a warning when he was being mean" thread, maybe it would be adequate. But this is a real issue and you really screwed up, as well as showed shaky -- if even existent -- moral footing.
You did a bad thing. You have shown that you're not capable to be in the position you are in at the one point it at may matter during.
this is humorous to me. whatever problems u have with your peers is your business but please don't accuse others of injustices when u yourself commit them.
u harassed me and repeatedly sent me PMs telling me i was homophobic in a very creepy manner. you don't think that's a bad thing? i think that clearly showed that YOUR not in the position to be in either, if that's your criteria.
you say the one time his job really mattered he didn't do it, but what about your job? u think harassing someone and constantly telling them they're homophobic can't create "real world consequential issues?"
don't play the victim. don't accuse your peers of not PREVENTING a situation or having no moral footing when u yourself conduct yourself in an inappropriate manner.
this is humorous to me. whatever problems u have with your peers is your business but please don't accuse others of injustices when u yourself commit them.
If that is the rule to live by, self policing moderation *cannot* exist.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
this is humorous to me. whatever problems u have with your peers is your business but please don't accuse others of injustices when u yourself commit them.
u harassed me and repeatedly sent me PMs telling me i was homophobic in a very creepy manner. you don't think that's a bad thing? i think that clearly showed that YOUR not in the position to be in either, if that's your criteria.
you say the one time his job really mattered he didn't do it, but what about your job? u think harassing someone and constantly telling them they're homophobic can't create "real world consequential issues?"
don't play the victim. don't accuse your peers of not PREVENTING a situation or having no moral footing when u yourself conduct yourself in an inappropriate manner.
First off, I can't believe you are trying to say that 'harassing a homophobe' on the internet can create 'real world consequential issues' when Homophobic behavior on the internet has had such a marked and observable effect on the 'real world', up to and including suicide.
What seems to have actually happened, is you made a veiled reference to a poster 'being gay' ("go back to eharmony") with another poster because he was defending his point on a thread.
You got an infraction for it.
You argued with Kijin via PM and/or on the thread about it.
Kijin explained to you why it was bad.
this is humorous to me. whatever problems u have with your peers is your business but please don't accuse others of injustices when u yourself commit them.
...
don't play the victim. don't accuse your peers of not PREVENTING a situation or having no moral footing when u yourself conduct yourself in an inappropriate manner.
I never was, am not, and never will be a staffer here but I'm pretty sure you're in the wrong, the dead wrong. I don't know why your post read to me as "et tu, Brute" and overwhelming self-righteous.
Quote from Kijin »
Not only that, but I made MULTIPLE report posts in that thread for users offering diagnostic and antagonistic advice to the user, which I have to assume were ignored as they were not apparent until this discussion began.
Just wanted to say, where I am, we're more registered than licensed. I'm also surprised that NavyJoe wasn't held accountable for his words.
Oh, as someone already said, you spoke frankly, and that, to me, is important in both overseeing stuff like the fora and in real life, as a, you know, person.
edit; I can't stay online right now because I have real life engagements. If I have a window to check up on my phone, I will, but real life comes first.
Go get 'em in the real world, with its things and all them things.
There is a process for everything which is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of the decision at hand.
That's great when all things are debating pot smoking or talking about magic card spoilers, because none of these discussions have real world impact.
Baiting a user who has professed interest in committing an act of violence against his school, being an accomplice to murder and making MTGS the "site where the guy said he was going to do this and we could have done something to stop him, etc" is a Real Life Matter with Real Life Weight; you're comparing something that absolutely does not matter in life to something that has life-long impacts on human lives. That you can draw comparison between the two or retroactively say, "Oh, everything got fixed after the fact!" ignores the admitted failure of procedure, the admitting lack of administrative foresight, and the fact that many of the professed problems were only dealt with well after the fact, and only after 4 pages of Community Issues posting, and only after a two prior related thread closures.
The staff did nothing to prevent anything; after 5 hours, lone gentleman had received two pages of posts, and afterward PM'd the staff noting he would get help. The staff was lucky nothing bad happened during their down time. You don't reward someone for action when variance decided what happened. What if, after two pages of posts, lone gentleman read NavyJoe's post and that was his tipping point? In a situation where the discussion is the hairpin trigger for which the OP is on, this is very much a likely outcome.
The staff failed to reasonably go about cleaning up the situation; after more than 24 hours, NavyJoe was not penalized for harassing someone professing to be on the verge of violence, not penalized for calling a staff member an "ass clown," and even had enough time to make a Community Issues thread to lament being called a neckbeard. Only after a second Community Issues thread was raised was there even an indication that there was "discussion" about the issue. And 27 hours later, an infraction was finally issued.
When the issue was raised in this thread, an administrator, in the same breath levying that I did not hold up the "standards and conduct" becoming of a moderator, proceeds to launch ad hominem attacks at me, send me a harassing PM stating that "congratulations on the drama," and note that I require a citation for my outrage because I didn't excessively note to him personally, after admitting he was asleep for most of the ordeal. How is that professionalism? How is that even acceptable?
And the staff should be commended for this? After admitting all of their failures? No one is receiving repercussions for it? Shame. Shame shame shame.
Bull****, we respond to adbots before I can even get to my reported posts. You can't for a second tell me 5 hours is a reasonable window of time... but also the window of time isn't even the forefront of what is so morally distressing in this (but for that it was just OK that a person baited a person in the OP's condition for over a day until it was complained about here). The only person raising an primary issue of time is r~ in regards to my input, which is a strawman to the real issues here.
I've pretty calmly outlined what is wrong here and what should be done about it several times. I don't understand your confusion.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
How do you not understand what is amoral in this situation? The NavyJoe issue took 5 pages and two thread closures before it was even hinted at being discussed. My staff removal took one thread closure, a PM, and a few hours. Do you not see the issue with that as a priority? Do you not see that as a moral issue? A miscommunication doesn't require 5 pages, three threads, 1+unknown# PMs, ignorance in the mod lounge to an issue, and a sudden shock only after being raised at least twice outside of the initial discussion.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Rianalnn and I are a lot alike, you know. What you say to him is doubly offensive to myself. The only difference between the two of us is that I removed myself from the staff so I could continue my questionable behavior, and he hasn't. So watch what you say, because I have feelings too.
Also, lol at autist flash mob.
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
Right, but your issue was simpler because there was no miscommunication. Even after those NavyJoe threads popped up, it was still unclear who should give that infraction. Didn't help that there were no admins and no WCT mods online at the time.
Obviously I wasn't involved in your dismissal, but I think it's fair to say that it was a long time coming, so once the decision was made things apparently moved along quite quickly.
I guess you're ultimately right that giving NavyJoe an infraction is a moral issue, but that oversight has been corrected and discussion has started on how to prevent that from happening in the future.
Yes, despite taking 5 hours (and this was not really an issue I've been harping on either), that lone gentleman was contacted above all else should not even be a question. If you'd failed in that, and were still on staff, would be absurd.
The other stuff, we're on the same boat. A lot of the staff are. I'm asking people to take accountability for a moral shortfall that required a 7 page thread, a three page thread, PMs, multiple thread closures, and ignorance much of the while. I would like accountability for being attacked because I apparently wasn't mad enough yesterday, despite being massively and very visibly so. I would like some transparancy the users of this site were promised very long ago. And most of all, I don't want to see anyone else on this forum be bullied for being at the very end of their rope, when they are very obviously in a precocious position, and even more-so in a situation where people's lives may be at stake.
My staffing (and lack thereof) is a measuring stick against the priority of a moral issue with extremely serious potential real-world consequences; I outlined in my OP that, even if the letter of how I lost my bold username was not true, the spirit behind it was. There's a moral issue present here and that there's a segment of staff that does not even acknowledge it is very distressing and calls into question the very leadership of the site itself.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
That has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you're harping on it. That you don't see the swiftness of removal measured against the almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction as the cause in light of it is what causes me to question the staffs', and subsequently your, as we're now having this discussion, morality.
The staff is supposed to be our guideline for these types of things. I was asked to leave because I didn't meet them, despite upholding a moral standard in this discussion that ultimately caused me to be destaffed. Would you not say that a multiple failure in the same regard on an issue bigger than name calling is a larger issue?
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Ria wouldn't have received the post reports from WCT. Admins only get reports if they're listed as a mod for that forum or there's no mods listed at all.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
Now I'm confused. I didn't bring up your dismissal except when you referred to it first. In fact, wasn't that the whole point of your previous argument? That you were demodded more quickly than NavyJoe received his infraction?
I'm also confused why you're now talking about an "almost non-existent response to a potentially fatal user interaction" when you yourself agreed that dealing with lone gentleman directly was obviously the most pressing need. I think we did a pretty good job of that. Secondary to that was dealing with NavyJoe, which was necessary, but not urgent. Perhaps it should have been more urgent than demodding you, but that's where the miscommunication comes in.
Maybe we're miscommunicating right now because I feel like you agree with me.
My being destaffed is irrelevant to my argument. The fact that I was destaffed and that my destaffing was deemed a more pressing matter than discussing NavyJoe's myriad outbursts is what is repugnant. Are we on the same plain now?
edit; I can't stay online right now because I have real life engagements. If I have a window to check up on my phone, I will, but real life comes first.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you're welcome to tell me I'm wrong on that point. Does that even change anything?
I didn't see that you edited this until now, so, yeah, I see where you're coming from. I still don't think you have a reason to believe one was deemed more pressing than the other. Just because you were demodded before NavyJoe got an infraction doesn't mean booting you is more important. It just means booting you was faster largely due to the miscommunication that occurred with NavyJoe's post. That's it.
The same number of times as a regular user. After that would be an administrative review. An administrative review is basically a sit down to discuss the rules and policies of your organization and make sure everything is understood. After a while even the most straight and narrow employee will lose sight of what their company stands for and what the company expects of them.
I suggest that a panel of users on every level come together and discuss what it is that users expect from MTGS and what the staff desires from the users. In the spirit of friendliness, transparency, and responsibility the panel meeting should be able to be viewed by all. A special IRC chatroom for example.
I liked you Kijin, even if you didn't like me. I think what has been said was the right thing and if stepping down is going to make you happy, it has to be done.
Thanks for putting so much time into making this MTGSalvation and not MTGCesspool. In the end we will just all have to "deal with it".
LOL
To be fair, that's not too far off from what Kijin's history has been like. Not to delve too deeply into it (since I'm neither on staff nor involved in any of what's happening and I doubt it's even my place to say this much), but Kijin has been almost demodded more than a few times. In each case, the same issues of his demeanor with users came up. Whether or not this situation is enough to be the straw breaking the camel's back isn't for me to say. I don't know enough about what went down in the past couple days to comment, though I didn't want to provide a little bit of context as far as Kijin's previous issues are concerned.
Regardless, I'm sad to see all this happen.
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
The only thing that should be remembered here is that if Kijin didn't care about this site, or the people that posted on it, he wouldn't have moderated it for 6+ years.
As someone who actually has a well groomed neck beard, I'm glad that he's done this for so long, and I know that he atleast for what this site was, or he'd never have done everything he's done.
Worst case scenario, he's said a few things in his history here that might have offend some people while doing all that he's done, but in the grand scheme of life, that's peanuts compared to all the great things he's done for this site, and even if I don't really frequent the portions of the site that he's moderated that often, I know that this site is a worse place without him, even if he offends some people.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
This mirrors my reading of the situation. There is no reason that the staff can't deal with multiple issues at the same time. Kijin seems to think that because actions taken against him occurred simultaneously with actions against arguably more egregious offenders, that he is being singled out or that the staff has lost their moral compass. I don't see why this has to be the case.
There is a process for everything which is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of the decision at hand. In the end all issues were dealt with. We have all seen the insane amount of pushback that a simple decision by the staff can have on these forums, so it doesn't surprise me that they acted cautiously. This caution may have meant a slower than ideal response to bad offenders, and a quicker than usual decision to remove what could be seen as a trouble moderator. Couple this all with the supposed miscommunication that went on and I don't think this whole situation is as bad as some are making it out to be.
just because u have a good history with Kijin doesn't mean that these actions weren't justified. u need to realize this. I was sent numerous PMs by Kijin, being accused of being homophobic while also being infracted for things that weren't warranted. and when i asked why, I was accused of trying to bait another user(which is an extremely subjective call). do u think those actions are befitting of a moderator? i certainly don't. and maybe if u were being harassed too, u would see the other side of the argument.
the bottom line is a moderator shouldn't have an agenda or any type of bias. why is it okay for one mod to belittle users while the others stay quiet? it isn't. i applaud the admin. for their actions. while u think others have a problem with this, u must also realize there are people like me that believe this is totally warranted.
kijin, when i joined this site I realized you had a great understanding of the game. after the way I was treated by you, however, I could never take this site seriously again if appropriate action was taken. u were genuinely trying to be hurtful and nasty for whatever reason.
realize that sometimes the problems we perceive in our environment really exist in us. you say this message board will never change, but maybe it will never change to what YOU want it to be, and I think that's a good thing. this place is a community, not one person's personal stomping ground.
that being said, there is no doubt your work was respected on MTGS. I think this thread is enough proof of that.
this is humorous to me. whatever problems u have with your peers is your business but please don't accuse others of injustices when u yourself commit them.
u harassed me and repeatedly sent me PMs telling me i was homophobic in a very creepy manner. you don't think that's a bad thing? i think that clearly showed that YOUR not in the position to be in either, if that's your criteria.
you say the one time his job really mattered he didn't do it, but what about your job? u think harassing someone and constantly telling them they're homophobic can't create "real world consequential issues?"
don't play the victim. don't accuse your peers of not PREVENTING a situation or having no moral footing when u yourself conduct yourself in an inappropriate manner.
If that is the rule to live by, self policing moderation *cannot* exist.
First off, I can't believe you are trying to say that 'harassing a homophobe' on the internet can create 'real world consequential issues' when Homophobic behavior on the internet has had such a marked and observable effect on the 'real world', up to and including suicide.
What seems to have actually happened, is you made a veiled reference to a poster 'being gay' ("go back to eharmony") with another poster because he was defending his point on a thread.
You got an infraction for it.
You argued with Kijin via PM and/or on the thread about it.
Kijin explained to you why it was bad.
You still think it wasn't bad.
He didn't do anything wrong there at all.
Twitter
Just wanted to say, where I am, we're more registered than licensed. I'm also surprised that NavyJoe wasn't held accountable for his words.
Oh, as someone already said, you spoke frankly, and that, to me, is important in both overseeing stuff like the fora and in real life, as a, you know, person.
Go get 'em in the real world, with its things and all them things.
</barn>
That's great when all things are debating pot smoking or talking about magic card spoilers, because none of these discussions have real world impact.
Baiting a user who has professed interest in committing an act of violence against his school, being an accomplice to murder and making MTGS the "site where the guy said he was going to do this and we could have done something to stop him, etc" is a Real Life Matter with Real Life Weight; you're comparing something that absolutely does not matter in life to something that has life-long impacts on human lives. That you can draw comparison between the two or retroactively say, "Oh, everything got fixed after the fact!" ignores the admitted failure of procedure, the admitting lack of administrative foresight, and the fact that many of the professed problems were only dealt with well after the fact, and only after 4 pages of Community Issues posting, and only after a two prior related thread closures.
The staff did nothing to prevent anything; after 5 hours, lone gentleman had received two pages of posts, and afterward PM'd the staff noting he would get help. The staff was lucky nothing bad happened during their down time. You don't reward someone for action when variance decided what happened. What if, after two pages of posts, lone gentleman read NavyJoe's post and that was his tipping point? In a situation where the discussion is the hairpin trigger for which the OP is on, this is very much a likely outcome.
The staff failed to reasonably go about cleaning up the situation; after more than 24 hours, NavyJoe was not penalized for harassing someone professing to be on the verge of violence, not penalized for calling a staff member an "ass clown," and even had enough time to make a Community Issues thread to lament being called a neckbeard. Only after a second Community Issues thread was raised was there even an indication that there was "discussion" about the issue. And 27 hours later, an infraction was finally issued.
When the issue was raised in this thread, an administrator, in the same breath levying that I did not hold up the "standards and conduct" becoming of a moderator, proceeds to launch ad hominem attacks at me, send me a harassing PM stating that "congratulations on the drama," and note that I require a citation for my outrage because I didn't excessively note to him personally, after admitting he was asleep for most of the ordeal. How is that professionalism? How is that even acceptable?
And the staff should be commended for this? After admitting all of their failures? No one is receiving repercussions for it? Shame. Shame shame shame.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr