There's likely already a module that allows this. However, if there is one that does not exist I would be more than willing to code a module to generate a static popup window requiring users to vote before being able to access the forums while logged in. Obviously, you would not want to force users not logged in to vote. I am willing and able to code this at zero cost with zero expectation of any form of repayment. I also have no issue having other programmers review my code for possible exploits and/or backdoors.
This is a bad idea. There are too many uninformed users who will just make a rash judgement based on which option is closer to their mouse so they can just get to browsing MTGS already. There are plenty of users who probably don't care and have no idea about the workings of the site besides "This is a neat forum I use for Magic stuff" and that will cause issues with the vote.
Like if I asked you to choose between a Granny Smith apple and a Red Delicious apple when you haven't even tasted either and didn't give you the option to try it before you had to choose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Each year that passes rings you inwardly with memory and might. Wield your heart, and the world will tremble."
That said, I will point out that there are any number of ways this can go horribly wrong. The odds that Ria would take being forced to step down negatively are extremely high in general, and get even higher with his personality type. As a result, I believe that it would be a poor decision for him to stay on staff in any capacity.
See, this is where we draw different conclusions. I think he'd take it better if it were a move to a back-end position where he only has to deal with Hannes and anyone else who ends up working on the tech end, rather than an outright removal from staff.
On that note, who is doing most of the tech work for the site when Hannes is absent?
This is a bad idea. There are too many uninformed users who will just make a rash judgement based on which option is closer to their mouse so they can just get to browsing MTGS already. There are plenty of users who probably don't care and have no idea about the workings of the site besides "This is a neat forum I use for Magic stuff" and that will cause issues with the vote.
Like if I asked you to choose between a Granny Smith apple and a Red Delicious apple when you haven't even tasted either and didn't give you the option to try it before you had to choose.
So what you're saying is that a democratic process needs to be limited to a certain group, eliminating certain groups of users from voting because you feel they are uneducated? You do realize nearly every democratic process in existence does not assume or require a fully educated user base? Even amongst professors who are voting for the new head/chair of our department aren't fully aware of the political side nor do we care to be.
This seems like more of a reason to deny democracy rather than encourage it. Additionally, this is a slippery slope towards a vote that is tainted with prejudice.
1) This has absolutely nothing to do with the gutter. Not everything around here does guys.
2) Azrael is 100% correct. Rianalnn is unsuited for leadership. He is petty, vindictive, secretive, power-hungry, lacks empathy, is prone to fits of irrationality, and generally holds the community in contempt. He should be forcibly removed.
The problem is.....
So say everyone involved in the gutter is going to be upset against the administrations move against the gutter. Its a given. They knew people would be upset when it was announced. I highly doubt anyone active in the gutter would be in favor of it. So if the issues at hand have -nothing- to do with the gutter, and thus gutter posters angry at Ria -must- be taken with a grain of salt, whats left?
A few mods who didn't work out for MTGS. Typical for any forum.
A couple mods who butt heads with the admin. Also somewhat typical in larger forums when you have a large list of mods. Some of those also biased "because gutter" and for it to have nothing to do with 'gutter' then these should be put aside.
A few people who have personal issues with the Admin.
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
It is nearly impossible to not associate the gutter thread, the attempts on his helpdesk and this thread with eachother. Unless everyone angry about the gutter was removed from the equation. Only then would the topics not be associated.
Look around - with the exception of having this amazing ability to draw people into threads to dogpile him, there is no real evidence that anything he does is damaging the site itself. Half of these claims are unfounded and stupid. Like "He flamed me. He said that was terrible of me" or maybe "Ria got rude with me because I was being rude to him. I'm allowed to do that. Hes not."
There is not really anything there. There is nothing showing that Ria has anything but good intentions for MTGS. Except a bunch of whining like the above example or some bickering. If your not involved personally with it, its very easy to tie in a correlation to current political events, and what people have to gain from it.
Now it stands to say, the benefit MTGS would see with Ria's resignation, is all these drama threads would stop and people would stop hammering about it. Might stop. Unless the staff continues to push to close the gutter without him, or they find a new target. It would be sad to oust an admin on the sole basis of "Dude, you got too much drama. You gotta go." rather than actual wrongdoings for MTGS.
This is a bad idea. There are too many uninformed users who will just make a rash judgement based on which option is closer to their mouse so they can just get to browsing MTGS already. There are plenty of users who probably don't care and have no idea about the workings of the site besides "This is a neat forum I use for Magic stuff" and that will cause issues with the vote.
Isn't that the point? Do not the people happily plugging away at MTGS enjoying their time here with no issues with the staff or no opinion count? They ARE the other side of the debate. They don't care - because its not an issue
So what you're saying is that a democratic process needs to be limited to a certain group, eliminating certain groups of users from voting because you feel they are uneducated? You do realize nearly every democratic process in existence does not assume or require a fully educated user base? Even amongst professors who are voting for the new head/chair of our department aren't fully aware of the political side nor do we care to be.
This seems like more of a reason to deny democracy rather than encourage it. Additionally, this is a slippery slope towards a vote that is tainted with prejudice.
On the contrary. In a true democratic process, no one is /forced/ to vote. What was proposed is a method to force all users to vote without any way to bypass it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Each year that passes rings you inwardly with memory and might. Wield your heart, and the world will tremble."
I'm new here and know essentially nothing about what has gone on in the past or what is going on now, but I found this to be an interesting thread anyway. I did find a few things to comment on, even though I cannot comment on many of the topics/issues...
The situation (for the upper-level staff, at least) had changed. In broad terms, the administration will honor the policies of past administrations until such a time that they can justify subverting it. That's the way things have always been here, and it's only logical. As situations change, the staff adjusts policies to best match it. I don't feel that's dishonest.
Interesting choice of words there. "Subverting."
So, it is your opinion that it is the job of the current administration to "subvert" the previous administrations policies? Are you sure you know what the word "subvert" implies?
This is a bad idea. There are too many uninformed users who will just make a rash judgement based on which option is closer to their mouse so they can just get to browsing MTGS already. There are plenty of users who probably don't care and have no idea about the workings of the site besides "This is a neat forum I use for Magic stuff" and that will cause issues with the vote.
Like if I asked you to choose between a Granny Smith apple and a Red Delicious apple when you haven't even tasted either and didn't give you the option to try it before you had to choose.
All that needs be done to "fix" the problem is include a third option of "I don't give a rat's ass. Let me access the site dangit!" then the "uneducated" can bypass the vote without being forced to choose a side.
On the contrary. In a true democratic process, no one is /forced/ to vote. What was proposed is a method to force all users to vote without any way to bypass it.
The requirement of a vote does not need to be binary as you seem to assume incorrectly. It is very easy to have an abstain option, however forced to vote would be true democracy. Everyone is presented the option and made abundantly aware of the poll, rather than having it secluded in a subforum or not announced. What you're describing is intended to limit the exposure of the vote, please do not perpetrate intellectual dishonesty any further.
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
He has alienated GOOD moderators that were actively contributing positively to the site. That hurts the site overall, specially when it's not one or two mods who are in this situation.
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
The evidence is the long string of people that he has alienated and hurt. Some of whom are coming forward, some of whom have long since been shut out, some of whom are suffering blowback over his political decisions, and some of whom are quietly (or not so quietly) grappling with his behavior from within the site's administration.
It's demoralizing for the long-time community on this site, and for many members of the staff. It's been eating away at the ranks of moderators for some time, and has led to poor decision-making. The number of examples that exist in the short space of time he's been in power isn't beyond count, but in a short space of time, there's already been an extremely marked downhill slide.
Sometimes, people write these kinds of dramatic effects as the simple cost of doing business on a forum website. That people's feelings are always going to get hurt, that drama is always going to erupt. I don't believe that's the case. For a brief moment in time, at the start of the year, we had a staff that was completely energized, unified, progressively making changes for the benefit of the userbase, and keeping the userbase fully informed and involved in the decison-making process. CI was practically a lifeless desert - after years and years of complaints on the part of users, things had finally changed for the better. People were happy.
Now? Now we're rapidly sliding backwards. The staff has hemorrhaged moderators due to political reasons at a rate that I have never seen before, after seven years in the CI trenches. The staff is at war with itself, internally, as bitter debates split the ranks and leave dissatisfaction on both sides. And segments of the userbase have risen up in protest once again.
You want a statement of the issues? There it is. The unity and quality of the staff and the confidence of the userbase in its leadership is at stake. Can the site survive without those things? Yes. It has before. But we can do better.
He has alienated GOOD moderators that were actively contributing positively to the site. That hurts the site overall, specially when it's not one or two mods who are in this situation.
Can you please provide cited examples? I have no general opinion on the administrator, however, you're not aiding your case by using over generalized statements and purely ad hominem attacks.
Half of these claims are unfounded and stupid. Like "Ria got rude with me because I was being rude to him. I'm allowed to do that. Hes not."
See, that's the thing: the staff shouldn't be dropping to the level of the rude and uncouth. Is this grounds for removing people from staff? Eh... to be honest, unless it's a frequent problem, probably not - and if it is a frequent problem, then finding out why it's happening, and what can be done to stop it, is the first step to fixing it. This "we're going to scream at the person who's having the problems" is counterproductive.
Can you please provide cited examples? I have no general opinion on the administrator, however, you're not aiding your case by using over generalized statements and purely ad hominem attacks.
See the post above yours. See the OP(s). See Manders' post. I have my own experience as a former staff member. I will not disclose private messages sent to me. I will let the moderators speak for themselves. I hope they do.
Can you please provide cited examples? I have no general opinion on the administrator, however, you're not aiding your case by using over generalized statements and purely ad hominem attacks.
I think Azrael outlined them in the OP:
When I was on board, we had a healthy and friendly relationship - but I was able to hold him in check. And I encouraged other staff members to continue speaking their minds and act as a counterbalance, as I left. Instead, an exodus ensued. Kraj, who knew Rian far better than the rest of us, jumped ship as soon as I left.Then Madding. NS. Misclick. Gaea's Regent. CK. Kijin. One by one, the number of voices able to act as counterbalances dwindled, while other moderators were promoted up the chain - but not through public moderator apps. By private selection and recommendation.
And GR, too. Please check this link: End of the line. Somewhat relevant, although it doesn't mention Ria. But believe me, Ria was certainly one of the reasons GR quit.
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Can you please provide cited examples? I have no general opinion on the administrator, however, you're not aiding your case by using over generalized statements and purely ad hominem attacks.
Kraj
Gaea's Regent
Kijin
(N_S)
Misclick
Annorax (though he's back now)
Clock King
and probably others have all left the staff, whether by choice, by force, or by choice as requested, because of ria in one way or another.
I'll let them explain if they so choose to, but that's the list off the top of my head.
The evidence is the long string of people that he has alienated and hurt. Some of whom are coming forward, some of whom have long since been shut out, some of whom are suffering blowback over his political decisions, and some of whom are quietly (or not so quietly) grappling with his behavior from within the site's administration.
It's demoralizing for the long-time community on this site, and for many members of the staff. It's been eating away at the ranks of moderators for some time, and has led to poor decision-making. The number of examples that exist in the short space of time he's been in power isn't beyond count, but in a short space of time, there's already been an extremely marked downhill slide.
Out of curiosity, has any consideration been given to how this might reflect how changes in management work in other private organizations?
A significant change in management can cause many of the same kind of ripples within the rest of an organization. Change a CEO or other high level position, especially with a change in tone and focus, and many people in the rest of an organization can be disgruntled by the change. Some leave, some stay on in a different capacity, etc. Even policies and procedures change to reflect different styles and approaches.
Without knowing the specifics of each instance, or even Rianalnn's actions behind the scenes, to what extent is the change in tone a disagreement in how staff feel about the site versus actual impact to the site's users?
So, I've been reading this thread since the morning to catch up on what's going on since I noticed it in Void's signature.
Firstly: I will attest to Manders's "piss up a rope" conversation happening. I remember receiving a very angry text from her some months ago regarding it.
Now, moving on:
I've refrained from commenting on any issues regarding ria up until now, because my personal experience with him has always been positive - I've never had an issue with ria and he's always been good to me, whether through PM or publicly.
However, I've become increasingly disturbed by the level of sweeping under the rug that I've witnessed regarding this site's issues.
So! ria's constant insistence on taking things to PM and keeping things in the Mod Lounge sent up red flags to me. If you're truly remedying the problem, why wouldn't you want this to become evident and visible to the userbase you're attempting to appease? This just reeks of a coverup. In addition, I've seen no attempt to aggressively fix the problems people keep bringing up - confrontation is a great way to get things out into the open and resolve discrepancies. But everything is happening behind closed doors - that's unsettling.
I would also like to make note that I have no affiliation with The Gutter and, in fact, am under the impression that several Gutterites have problems with me. (I will not point fingers, though, as that's not the issue here.) In spite of this fact, I see no reason to drag The Gutter into this - it's not "former butthurt Gutterites vs. ria", it's "people with legitimate concerns about how the site is being run vs. the current administration, either fully or in part". So the fact that The Gutter is now closed is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand, LogicX.
Now, regarding Az:
I have a lot of respect for Azrael. I think he's a very competent guy, and in fact, have enjoyed the conversations I've had with him. He does a lot of good in the Mafia subforum and makes splendid decisions as a senior member of the Mafia Council.
However, I will not support him becoming an Admin except in the event that there is no other way to peacefully resolve the issues at hand.
This is not because I don't think Az would be an excellent Admin - far from it. I had absolutely no problems with Az as staff when he was on it and think he would be a wonderful leader for the site. My discretion is due to the fact that Azrael is a busy guy - he has a career, a wife (you're married now, right?), and other things that take up his time, Mafia Council included. If he thinks he can handle the workload that comes with being an Admin and not have his other responsibilities suffer for it, then I will also be in favor of this decision. Please don't misunderstand my concerns, Az. Just looking out for you.
Anyway, as it stands, given the sheer amount of non-transparency we've seen in resolving issues lately, the overly controversial decisions that have led to much flak without seeming to fully address the userbase's concerns, and the disharmony amongst the staff, I support rianalnn stepping down from the Administrator position. It's nothing against the guy - I've no qualms with him (or any of the other staff, for that matter) outside of the decisions I've seen brought to light by other users that ria has made recently as staff.
Anyway, I hope the fact that I've chosen to actually speak up on the issue has volume towards how concerning I have found this to be.
So say everyone involved in the gutter is going to be upset against the administrations move against the gutter. Its a given. They knew people would be upset when it was announced. I highly doubt anyone active in the gutter would be in favor of it. So if the issues at hand have -nothing- to do with the gutter, and thus gutter posters angry at Ria -must- be taken with a grain of salt, whats left?
A few mods who didn't work out for MTGS. Typical for any forum.
A couple mods who butt heads with the admin. Also somewhat typical in larger forums when you have a large list of mods. Some of those also biased "because gutter" and for it to have nothing to do with 'gutter' then these should be put aside.
A few people who have personal issues with the Admin.
You'll find I do not fall under any of these categories.
Quote from YamahaR1 »
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
Do you not find it disturbing that the site is being moderated overly discreetly? That the users have no way to indicate what's going on to them except provide anecdotal evidence and private conversations? That the non-staff users have no say in the administrative decisions that occur within the site? That alone should be cause for alarm - it's censorship at its worst. Nothing good comes from censorship - it only serves to obscure what's actually going on.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
See the post above yours. See the OP(s). See Manders' post. I have my own experience as a former staff member. I will not disclose private messages sent to me. I will let the moderators speak for themselves. I hope they do.
The OP is full of rhetoric and little to no detail or evidence. Manders post is the only one I see providing any evidence of an administrator possibly acting inappropriately. There's really nothing there, in those PM's, that would be a means for unrest or inciting a vote of no confidence. You've done absolutely nothing in either thread except troll, spew rhetoric, and commit an exhaustive amount of fallacy. I can link all of your posts if you don't desire to click your own post history.
So say everyone involved in the gutter is going to be upset against the administrations move against the gutter. Its a given. They knew people would be upset when it was announced. I highly doubt anyone active in the gutter would be in favor of it. So if the issues at hand have -nothing- to do with the gutter, and thus gutter posters angry at Ria -must- be taken with a grain of salt, whats left?
A few mods who didn't work out for MTGS. Typical for any forum.
A couple mods who butt heads with the admin. Also somewhat typical in larger forums when you have a large list of mods. Some of those also biased "because gutter" and for it to have nothing to do with 'gutter' then these should be put aside.
A few people who have personal issues with the Admin.
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
It is nearly impossible to not associate the gutter thread, the attempts on his helpdesk and this thread with eachother. Unless everyone angry about the gutter was removed from the equation. Only then would the topics not be associated.
Looking at the members who are actively posting on this thread as opposed to those who have liked you appear to have got what you wanted.
The only member of the 'Save the Gutter' crew who has more than one post is Gaea's Regent. In fact one member who is usually incredibly vocal in his support for the Gutter is noticeably absent from this thread other than to say he is following carefully.
Look around - with the exception of having this amazing ability to draw people into threads to dogpile him, there is no real evidence that anything he does is damaging the site itself. Half of these claims are unfounded and stupid. Like "He flamed me. He said that was terrible of me" or maybe "Ria got rude with me because I was being rude to him. I'm allowed to do that. Hes not."
Unfounded is the wrong would to use. The people bringing them up definitly believe that there is a foundation to the issues that they are bringing up, claiming otherwise is a callous disregard for there feeling in the matter.
There is not really anything there. There is nothing showing that Ria has anything but good intentions for MTGS. Except a bunch of whining like the above example or some bickering. If your not involved personally with it, its very easy to tie in a correlation to current political events, and what people have to gain from it.
Nothing that we can see at the moment because we can only see one side of the issue, that which has be disclosed by Mander's and Azrael, and until rianalnn is able to come in and give his side of the story.
Just as Harikus requested a shelving of the gutter issue until the suspensions for Kpaca and (N_S) ended this issue should not be finally resolved until rianalnn has returned from his holiday and is able to properly compose himself
Now it stands to say, the benefit MTGS would see with Ria's resignation, is all these drama threads would stop and people would stop hammering about it. Might stop. Unless the staff continues to push to close the gutter without him, or they find a new target. It would be sad to oust an admin on the sole basis of "Dude, you got too much drama. You gotta go." rather than actual wrongdoings for MTGS.
Leaving aside the Drama bomb. And a little personal perspective a couple of years ago I had the misfortune of giving evidence to the Human resources department in a grievance issue so had to do a bit of reading round that area.
If what Mander's and Talore has outlined is accurate and symptomatic of what happens in the mod cave it is very likely that the pair of them would have a pretty good case under EU/UK employment law. Though as I said I only looked into it briefly several years ago so take it with the healthy pinch of salt it demands.
On the contrary. In a true democratic process, no one is /forced/ to vote. What was proposed is a method to force all users to vote without any way to bypass it.
This is only true under the US/UK model of Democracy. In Australia there is a legal obligation to vote imposed on all its citizens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
So you don't think a former mod is going to have a more complete understanding of the issues due to experience, compared to some random user?
For the mentioned person? No. There's an excessive amount of trolling, intellectual dishonesty, rhetoric, and fallacy from this particular person which completely destroys any basis they had for authority.
Azrael seems to be the only capable of articulating like an educated adult thus far. There is some weight in what he says, but without detail it's still merely hearsay, speculation, and rhetoric.
The requirement of a vote does not need to be binary as you seem to assume incorrectly. It is very easy to have an abstain option, however forced to vote would be true democracy. Everyone is presented the option and made abundantly aware of the poll, rather than having it secluded in a subforum or not announced. What you're describing is intended to limit the exposure of the vote, please do not perpetrate intellectual dishonesty any further.
I'm not saying that the vote should be hidden or sequestered away to a suboforum and I never suggested that. I suggested that users not be required to vote in order to use the site. Quit putting words in my mouth.
The binary of "Kick or keep" was never refuted in any of the posts agreeing with the vote until after I made my point about forcing users to vote. Pardon me for taking the information available and representing it in a realistic scenario.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Each year that passes rings you inwardly with memory and might. Wield your heart, and the world will tremble."
This is a bad idea. There are too many uninformed users who will just make a rash judgement based on which option is closer to their mouse so they can just get to browsing MTGS already. There are plenty of users who probably don't care and have no idea about the workings of the site besides "This is a neat forum I use for Magic stuff" and that will cause issues with the vote.
Like if I asked you to choose between a Granny Smith apple and a Red Delicious apple when you haven't even tasted either and didn't give you the option to try it before you had to choose.
Sieging Your Tower
Signature image by DNC.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
On that note, who is doing most of the tech work for the site when Hannes is absent?
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
So what you're saying is that a democratic process needs to be limited to a certain group, eliminating certain groups of users from voting because you feel they are uneducated? You do realize nearly every democratic process in existence does not assume or require a fully educated user base? Even amongst professors who are voting for the new head/chair of our department aren't fully aware of the political side nor do we care to be.
This seems like more of a reason to deny democracy rather than encourage it. Additionally, this is a slippery slope towards a vote that is tainted with prejudice.
The problem is.....
So say everyone involved in the gutter is going to be upset against the administrations move against the gutter. Its a given. They knew people would be upset when it was announced. I highly doubt anyone active in the gutter would be in favor of it. So if the issues at hand have -nothing- to do with the gutter, and thus gutter posters angry at Ria -must- be taken with a grain of salt, whats left?
A few mods who didn't work out for MTGS. Typical for any forum.
A couple mods who butt heads with the admin. Also somewhat typical in larger forums when you have a large list of mods. Some of those also biased "because gutter" and for it to have nothing to do with 'gutter' then these should be put aside.
A few people who have personal issues with the Admin.
Knowing that, I ask again : What damage has the man done to MTGS? Where is this corruption and evidence that he is bad for the website?
It is nearly impossible to not associate the gutter thread, the attempts on his helpdesk and this thread with eachother. Unless everyone angry about the gutter was removed from the equation. Only then would the topics not be associated.
Look around - with the exception of having this amazing ability to draw people into threads to dogpile him, there is no real evidence that anything he does is damaging the site itself. Half of these claims are unfounded and stupid. Like "He flamed me. He said that was terrible of me" or maybe "Ria got rude with me because I was being rude to him. I'm allowed to do that. Hes not."
There is not really anything there. There is nothing showing that Ria has anything but good intentions for MTGS. Except a bunch of whining like the above example or some bickering. If your not involved personally with it, its very easy to tie in a correlation to current political events, and what people have to gain from it.
Now it stands to say, the benefit MTGS would see with Ria's resignation, is all these drama threads would stop and people would stop hammering about it. Might stop. Unless the staff continues to push to close the gutter without him, or they find a new target. It would be sad to oust an admin on the sole basis of "Dude, you got too much drama. You gotta go." rather than actual wrongdoings for MTGS.
Isn't that the point? Do not the people happily plugging away at MTGS enjoying their time here with no issues with the staff or no opinion count? They ARE the other side of the debate. They don't care - because its not an issue
My Buying Thread
On the contrary. In a true democratic process, no one is /forced/ to vote. What was proposed is a method to force all users to vote without any way to bypass it.
Sieging Your Tower
Signature image by DNC.
Interesting choice of words there. "Subverting."
So, it is your opinion that it is the job of the current administration to "subvert" the previous administrations policies? Are you sure you know what the word "subvert" implies?
Was this a Freudian slip?
Uh, yeah. I think you made it pretty clear where you stand, even though you tried really hard to hide it in a bunch of rhetoric.
All that needs be done to "fix" the problem is include a third option of "I don't give a rat's ass. Let me access the site dangit!" then the "uneducated" can bypass the vote without being forced to choose a side.
The requirement of a vote does not need to be binary as you seem to assume incorrectly. It is very easy to have an abstain option, however forced to vote would be true democracy. Everyone is presented the option and made abundantly aware of the poll, rather than having it secluded in a subforum or not announced. What you're describing is intended to limit the exposure of the vote, please do not perpetrate intellectual dishonesty any further.
He has alienated GOOD moderators that were actively contributing positively to the site. That hurts the site overall, specially when it's not one or two mods who are in this situation.
My YouTube Channel
The evidence is the long string of people that he has alienated and hurt. Some of whom are coming forward, some of whom have long since been shut out, some of whom are suffering blowback over his political decisions, and some of whom are quietly (or not so quietly) grappling with his behavior from within the site's administration.
It's demoralizing for the long-time community on this site, and for many members of the staff. It's been eating away at the ranks of moderators for some time, and has led to poor decision-making. The number of examples that exist in the short space of time he's been in power isn't beyond count, but in a short space of time, there's already been an extremely marked downhill slide.
Sometimes, people write these kinds of dramatic effects as the simple cost of doing business on a forum website. That people's feelings are always going to get hurt, that drama is always going to erupt. I don't believe that's the case. For a brief moment in time, at the start of the year, we had a staff that was completely energized, unified, progressively making changes for the benefit of the userbase, and keeping the userbase fully informed and involved in the decison-making process. CI was practically a lifeless desert - after years and years of complaints on the part of users, things had finally changed for the better. People were happy.
Now? Now we're rapidly sliding backwards. The staff has hemorrhaged moderators due to political reasons at a rate that I have never seen before, after seven years in the CI trenches. The staff is at war with itself, internally, as bitter debates split the ranks and leave dissatisfaction on both sides. And segments of the userbase have risen up in protest once again.
You want a statement of the issues? There it is. The unity and quality of the staff and the confidence of the userbase in its leadership is at stake. Can the site survive without those things? Yes. It has before. But we can do better.
Can you please provide cited examples? I have no general opinion on the administrator, however, you're not aiding your case by using over generalized statements and purely ad hominem attacks.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
See the post above yours. See the OP(s). See Manders' post. I have my own experience as a former staff member. I will not disclose private messages sent to me. I will let the moderators speak for themselves. I hope they do.
My YouTube Channel
I don't see how this is relevant? argumentum ad verecundiam.
And GR, too. Please check this link: End of the line. Somewhat relevant, although it doesn't mention Ria. But believe me, Ria was certainly one of the reasons GR quit.
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Kraj
Gaea's Regent
Kijin
(N_S)
Misclick
Annorax (though he's back now)
Clock King
and probably others have all left the staff, whether by choice, by force, or by choice as requested, because of ria in one way or another.
I'll let them explain if they so choose to, but that's the list off the top of my head.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Out of curiosity, has any consideration been given to how this might reflect how changes in management work in other private organizations?
A significant change in management can cause many of the same kind of ripples within the rest of an organization. Change a CEO or other high level position, especially with a change in tone and focus, and many people in the rest of an organization can be disgruntled by the change. Some leave, some stay on in a different capacity, etc. Even policies and procedures change to reflect different styles and approaches.
Without knowing the specifics of each instance, or even Rianalnn's actions behind the scenes, to what extent is the change in tone a disagreement in how staff feel about the site versus actual impact to the site's users?
So you don't think a former mod is going to have a more complete understanding of the issues due to experience, compared to some random user?
Firstly: I will attest to Manders's "piss up a rope" conversation happening. I remember receiving a very angry text from her some months ago regarding it.
Now, moving on:
I've refrained from commenting on any issues regarding ria up until now, because my personal experience with him has always been positive - I've never had an issue with ria and he's always been good to me, whether through PM or publicly.
However, I've become increasingly disturbed by the level of sweeping under the rug that I've witnessed regarding this site's issues.
So! ria's constant insistence on taking things to PM and keeping things in the Mod Lounge sent up red flags to me. If you're truly remedying the problem, why wouldn't you want this to become evident and visible to the userbase you're attempting to appease? This just reeks of a coverup. In addition, I've seen no attempt to aggressively fix the problems people keep bringing up - confrontation is a great way to get things out into the open and resolve discrepancies. But everything is happening behind closed doors - that's unsettling.
I would also like to make note that I have no affiliation with The Gutter and, in fact, am under the impression that several Gutterites have problems with me. (I will not point fingers, though, as that's not the issue here.) In spite of this fact, I see no reason to drag The Gutter into this - it's not "former butthurt Gutterites vs. ria", it's "people with legitimate concerns about how the site is being run vs. the current administration, either fully or in part". So the fact that The Gutter is now closed is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand, LogicX.
Now, regarding Az:
I have a lot of respect for Azrael. I think he's a very competent guy, and in fact, have enjoyed the conversations I've had with him. He does a lot of good in the Mafia subforum and makes splendid decisions as a senior member of the Mafia Council.
However, I will not support him becoming an Admin except in the event that there is no other way to peacefully resolve the issues at hand.
This is not because I don't think Az would be an excellent Admin - far from it. I had absolutely no problems with Az as staff when he was on it and think he would be a wonderful leader for the site. My discretion is due to the fact that Azrael is a busy guy - he has a career, a wife (you're married now, right?), and other things that take up his time, Mafia Council included. If he thinks he can handle the workload that comes with being an Admin and not have his other responsibilities suffer for it, then I will also be in favor of this decision. Please don't misunderstand my concerns, Az. Just looking out for you.
Anyway, as it stands, given the sheer amount of non-transparency we've seen in resolving issues lately, the overly controversial decisions that have led to much flak without seeming to fully address the userbase's concerns, and the disharmony amongst the staff, I support rianalnn stepping down from the Administrator position. It's nothing against the guy - I've no qualms with him (or any of the other staff, for that matter) outside of the decisions I've seen brought to light by other users that ria has made recently as staff.
Anyway, I hope the fact that I've chosen to actually speak up on the issue has volume towards how concerning I have found this to be.
Also, this:
You'll find I do not fall under any of these categories.
Do you not find it disturbing that the site is being moderated overly discreetly? That the users have no way to indicate what's going on to them except provide anecdotal evidence and private conversations? That the non-staff users have no say in the administrative decisions that occur within the site? That alone should be cause for alarm - it's censorship at its worst. Nothing good comes from censorship - it only serves to obscure what's actually going on.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The OP is full of rhetoric and little to no detail or evidence. Manders post is the only one I see providing any evidence of an administrator possibly acting inappropriately. There's really nothing there, in those PM's, that would be a means for unrest or inciting a vote of no confidence. You've done absolutely nothing in either thread except troll, spew rhetoric, and commit an exhaustive amount of fallacy. I can link all of your posts if you don't desire to click your own post history.
I'd like to know who you're referring to with this.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Looking at the members who are actively posting on this thread as opposed to those who have liked you appear to have got what you wanted.
The only member of the 'Save the Gutter' crew who has more than one post is Gaea's Regent. In fact one member who is usually incredibly vocal in his support for the Gutter is noticeably absent from this thread other than to say he is following carefully.
Unfounded is the wrong would to use. The people bringing them up definitly believe that there is a foundation to the issues that they are bringing up, claiming otherwise is a callous disregard for there feeling in the matter.
Nothing that we can see at the moment because we can only see one side of the issue, that which has be disclosed by Mander's and Azrael, and until rianalnn is able to come in and give his side of the story.
Just as Harikus requested a shelving of the gutter issue until the suspensions for Kpaca and (N_S) ended this issue should not be finally resolved until rianalnn has returned from his holiday and is able to properly compose himself
Leaving aside the Drama bomb. And a little personal perspective a couple of years ago I had the misfortune of giving evidence to the Human resources department in a grievance issue so had to do a bit of reading round that area.
If what Mander's and Talore has outlined is accurate and symptomatic of what happens in the mod cave it is very likely that the pair of them would have a pretty good case under EU/UK employment law. Though as I said I only looked into it briefly several years ago so take it with the healthy pinch of salt it demands.
This is only true under the US/UK model of Democracy. In Australia there is a legal obligation to vote imposed on all its citizens.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
For the mentioned person? No. There's an excessive amount of trolling, intellectual dishonesty, rhetoric, and fallacy from this particular person which completely destroys any basis they had for authority.
Azrael seems to be the only capable of articulating like an educated adult thus far. There is some weight in what he says, but without detail it's still merely hearsay, speculation, and rhetoric.
I'm not saying that the vote should be hidden or sequestered away to a suboforum and I never suggested that. I suggested that users not be required to vote in order to use the site. Quit putting words in my mouth.
In the post that started the voting idea:
The binary of "Kick or keep" was never refuted in any of the posts agreeing with the vote until after I made my point about forcing users to vote. Pardon me for taking the information available and representing it in a realistic scenario.
Sieging Your Tower
Signature image by DNC.