His point stands. The staff have set a precedent of being lenient on short posts in this part of the site (and let's face it, this was posted in the wrong part of the forum, it really should be in Special Occasions with the rest of the general farewell threads where things are a fair bit more relaxed) as far as replying to posters leaving, signing up or stepping down from staff. He's well aware that the Forum Rules count one-word posts as spam, he's just saying that the rule is relaxed for these circumstances (and have been for a long time, in fact).
Would you really want posters to be infracted for saying goodbye in a farewell thread? Really think about what you're suggesting.
His point stands. The staff have set a precedent of being lenient on short posts in this part of the site (and let's face it, this was posted in the wrong part of the forum, it really should be in Special Occasions with the rest of the general farewell threads where things are a fair bit more relaxed) as far as replying to posters leaving, signing up or stepping down from staff. He's well aware that the Forum Rules count one-word posts as spam, he's just saying that the rule is relaxed for these circumstances (and have been for a long time, in fact).
Would you really want posters to be infracted for saying goodbye in a farewell thread? Really think about what you're suggesting.
Also, your attitude is the pits. Just saying.
Good to know that I can now spam in CI. Thank you, mods! I'm going to go spam the crap out of this subforum now!
And troll. Because apparently that should be allowed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Folks, this is not the thread for this. This thread is here for Solaran to air his grievances with the site and for those that were his friends to wish him well wherever he goes. Further discussion regarding the rules should be taken to another thread, or to a helpdesk.
To my knowledge, we have never infracted 'goodbye' posts in threads, and I don't want us starting down that path now. These threads are celebrations of the person's past and their good times here, and a statement of 'we're your friends and we'll miss you'. There's room for leniency here. For everyone.
Good to see the 'lynch everyone' CI culture is still alive and well! People wonder why mods are dropping like flies.
To be fair some of them should be dropping like flies in a room filled with pesticide fogger. But thats my 2 cents. And the recent leavings both announced and unannounced is showing. Plus the first few posts pretty much shows the distaste between the groups.
You haven't been habitually antagonistic towards him. You didn't "thank" the post where he said he was leaving. I truly believe that you are wishing him good luck wherever he goes. With that being said, yes. You violated the rules, and should be held to that standard.
Historically, leaving threads have been exempt to a number of the definitions of Spam. Saying something to the effect of "May the forces of evil get lost on the way to your house" doesn't advance the discussion, and simply repeating 'goodbye' in its various forms is not an original thought when someone else has said it before you. If we're talking the spam rules, we apply almost none of them to these types of threads. Some wish to inform others of plans, to say their farewells. I felt it was enough to simply say 'so long', informing Solaran that I read his post, that he will be missed, and acknowledging his complaints.
At any rate, it's true that my "goodbye" post does read pretty flippant/kicking-him-on-the-way-out, so I would like to apologize to Solaran for that. It wasn't my intention. The two of us haven't seen eye-to-eye on a number of things, but I respect him as a poster and I'm sad to see him go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
At any rate, it's true that my "goodbye" post does read pretty flippant/kicking-him-on-the-way-out, so I would like to apologize to Solaran for that. It wasn't my intention. The two of us haven't seen eye-to-eye on a number of things, but I respect him as a poster and I'm sad to see him go.
What about Talore and Teia? Were they being sincere? Especially considering the 'Thanks' that was given?
Buhaha, this is great.
I love seeing the petty squabbles of the mods throwing around power.
I gotta admit, watching this site rot from the inside, and seeing how corrupt things have become makes me a little happy inside.
You know what Soloran? I am going to ignore the last 36 posts and just say that it's not good to see you go. I understand the frustration you feel and know that you aren't the only one. You mention that you hadn't ever been in any trouble before a couple months ago... so I looked, saw you actually were issued quite a few warnings/infractions in the past (about as many an me), and then realized that I wish more people were like you. An infraction here and there is NOT being in trouble. I am glad that you get the gravity of a random ticket here and there... no big deal.
I don't know if there is anything I can or should say, but whenever I see someone publicly quit - regardless of who it is - I feel bad that the relationship didn't work out. You like MTGS and MTGS seemed to like you. I'm not going to put blame on anyone, but I do hope that the CI Denizens AND the staff alike can read your post and ask themselves "Is it possible that I am part of the problem? If so, what can I do to keep this from happening again?"
I gotta admit, watching this site rot from the inside, and seeing how corrupt things have become makes me a little happy inside.
Which really says more about you than the site when you get right down to it.
As far as the 'Thanks' to Solaran's post goes, I agree it comes off poorly. Regardless of how it was intended, that's not going to look like anything other than a mod flipping off a particularly problematic poster, especially given that it seems as though the staff is on fart watch with every possible indiscretion seized upon like people were eagerly anticipating it. I don't think it was a smart move.
But I do understand it. If a user is clearly unhappy to the point of being disgruntled, has made it a point to be belligerent about the rules and has generally just been negative and a source of grief (and not just for the staff), I can empathize with being alright with that user choosing to leave. Making the decision that you're not happy with things and it's time to let go and move on is a mature thing to do. I liken it to when I decided to step down as admin, had there been a 'Thanks' option at that time, I'd expect it would have gotten a few. I was a miserable bastard by that point and it was a good thing when I walked away. Not just for myself, but for those interacting with me as well.
So, Solaran, I'm going to expand upon my earlier goodbye to you. I don't know you personally, but I honestly do wish you the best. And I didn't really know you on the site either since I kinda made it a point to avoid you as best I could, but it takes strength to acknowledge when something isn't making you happy and you need to walk away. You could have made everyone around you as unhappy as you are, like I was starting to, but you didn't. And for that, I thank you.
When someone publicly quits, there are 3 things going on.
1) The person feels frustrated/helpless to affect outcome
2) They feel regret and a sense of loss of something they care about "six-years"
3) They accept that its a lost cause
@ Solaran, I never agree much with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.
Another old timer is leaving. What is happening to this place? I'm sad you're leaving because for every veteran poster that leaves, that is one less voice of reason, concern, and honesty that actually matter on this site.
Quite frankly, the leadership here is a joke. A pitiful, corrupt joke. There are admins and mods who should never have held any position of power, and on sites where I once served as a mod each and every one of those in question (they know who they are) would have lost mod status within a month of becoming a mod.
There are certainly more productive ways these concerns could have been raised and resolved.
It also paints a monochromatic picture. Even those personnel that many users, including myself, may have some reservations about, also have strengths and potentially room for improvement. And I think that things have been improving.
But with regard to the fact that on many sites, a different and far less forgiving approach would have been taken in response to a number of the issues that have been raised - I think that's quite accurate.
The site has been very forgiving of moderator error throughout its history. It's also, perhaps, been less judicious in selecting its personnel than it possibly should have been at times. However, to a point, offering guidance and leniency and treating your fellow moderators with respect, and having clear lines of communication with them on how to improve, and is an excellent and superior approach to what many sites are faced with.
I also don't mean to suggest that moderators are not held accountable for breaches of the forum rules. I don't think there's much of an argument that there's a double standard - over the past year, major steps and commitments have been taken to ensure that moderators are held to the same standard as the userbase, and I'm satisfied, notwithstanding the earlier posts in this thread, that those commitments are as strong today as they ever were.
However, there is probably some call for continued dialogue with the userbase or with representatives such as Belgareth regarding the appropriate calibration of moderators, and developing more effective personnel policies with a clear conception of when a moderator's performance should be considered unsatisfactory, and a clear process of the steps which should be taken to improve the situation.
With regards to Belgareth in particular, I think his presence as a lounge consultant would be of inestimable value to the staff. He has demonstrated a clear ability to communicate effectively with the staff in difficult circumstances such as the WCT issue, and his experience, integrity, and dedication to the site would be maximally effective in that position.
But returning to the idea of a clear process in response to persistent moderator complaints, I think the probationary model is a good one, although it hasn't been used or revised in quite some time. At times, it has seemed as though protecting the feelings of the moderators in question, being supportive, and maintaining cohesion as a team, have been overriding factors in policy-making decisions. While it certainly is a factor, it has perhaps overshadowed other, equally important concerns - the larger picture being the interests of the site and of the userbase.
When a crisis develops, the userbase wants to see internal acknowledgement, awareness, and constructive criticism in response to moderator-user disputes. They want to know that the administration is aware of the problem, and is on their side at heart - and not simply on the side of their coworker. The overall impression, however, of a divide between how the staff views problems and userbase complaints, and the perception that the staff is more interested in protecting its moderators from overly harsh userbase complaints rather than it is in responding to userbase feedback, is something that should receive some thoughtful attention. I don't mean to suggest that the staff are not interested in responding to userbase feedback - but perhaps naturally, due to the amount of venom and disagreement that has been in the air, that has become a secondary concern, when it ought to be at the very forefront.
Applying that to the situation at hand, Solaran's criticisms of the administration's handling have so far gone unchallenged and unaddressed. If the admin has an explanation for what happened to Solaran, and there are facts that should be brought forward to explain in greater detail what was going on, I think that would certainly help defuse the situation. Or, in the alternative, if there is some merit to Solaran's concerns, it would be very helpful to have the administration make a statement explaining their take on the situation and the steps they're taking to address it.
So far, the reaction by the staff has largely been focused around the exaggerated personal attacks on the staff by the userbase, and on defenses against personal attacks. I would suggest that calmly addressing the substance of Solaran's post, either to explain how it is inaccurate, or to acknowledge points where mistakes were made and there is room for improvement, would be more productive and lead to a quick resolution of the issue.
Applying that to the situation at hand, Solaran's criticisms of the administration's handling have so far gone unchallenged and unaddressed. If the admin has an explanation for what happened to Solaran, and there are facts that should be brought forward to explain in greater detail what was going on, I think that would certainly help defuse the situation. Or, in the alternative, if there is some merit to Solaran's concerns, it would be very helpful to have the administration make a statement explaining their take on the situation and the steps they're taking to address it.
Without going into specifics, I can tell you that Solaran is incorrect about the "suspended for two infractions" part; looking at his profile, he definitely had three active infractions at the time. I can't speak to his inability to see further infractions, but there were definitely three.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
There are certainly more productive ways these concerns could have been raised and resolved.
It also paints a monochromatic picture. Even those personnel that many users, including myself, may have some reservations about, also have strengths and potentially room for improvement. And I think that things have been improving.
But with regard to the fact that on many sites, a different and far less forgiving approach would have been taken in response to a number of the issues that have been raised - I think that's quite accurate.
I will barn this on multiple levels. Azrael is certainly right that we take a very different approach than most sites, and it is manifested at all levels.
First: Our moderators have much higher expectations of accountability and professionalism than is seen elsewhere. Laughing in their face or being disrespectful to users are things that we just don't tolerate and reprimand heavily for. This hasn't always been the case, but we've been moving towards this point for a long long time.
Second: It wasn't always this way in our site's history, but we are obsessive about giving users a medium through which to voice their problems, to the point that we have between 6 and 7 (depending on how you count them) channels for voicing complaints.
Third: While we have some of the stricter rules sets that you'll find on internet forums, we're extremely lenient in how we apply them. Most anything you see on our reasons for suspension would receive a ban elsewhere. We believe people are inherently good at heart and our rules, while strict, offer the maximum opportunity to learn to follow them. Additionally, our policy to allow previously banned users to return is something that I've seen replicated nowhere else. Our appeals system is similarly unique.
The site has been very forgiving of moderator error throughout its history. It's also, perhaps, been less judicious in selecting its personnel than it possibly should have been at times. However, to a point, offering guidance and leniency and treating your fellow moderators with respect, and having clear lines of communication with them on how to improve, and is an excellent and superior approach to what many sites are faced with.
I agree completely.
I also don't mean to suggest that moderators are not held accountable for breaches of the forum rules. I don't think there's much of an argument that there's a double standard - over the past year, major steps and commitments have been taken to ensure that moderators are held to the same standard as the userbase, and I'm satisfied, notwithstanding the earlier posts in this thread, that those commitments are as strong today as they ever were.
/barn
However, there is probably some call for continued dialogue with the userbase or with representatives such as Belgareth regarding the appropriate calibration of moderators, and developing more effective personnel policies with a clear conception of when a moderator's performance should be considered unsatisfactory, and a clear process of the steps which should be taken to improve the situation.
We do have a series of protocols that we follow regarding moderator misconduct. It is not something that is terribly specific on repercussions, but rather a guide on how to escalate the assistance a moderator recieves in an effort to help them better do their job and thus avoid termination.
No, I will not be releasing these protocols to the public; they are confidential to the senior staff, and I'd rather them not be used as a weapon in the same way the CoC was misappropriated.
With regards to Belgareth in particular, I think his presence as a lounge consultant would be of inestimable value to the staff. He has demonstrated a clear ability to communicate effectively with the staff in difficult circumstances such as the WCT issue, and his experience, integrity, and dedication to the site would be maximally effective in that position.
The LC position is extremely limited in those that are accepted. To date there have only been two (Sene and {MikeyG}). I don't mind having the staff consider him, but I can make no promises beyond that.
But returning to the idea of a clear process in response to persistent moderator complaints, I think the probationary model is a good one, although it hasn't been used or revised in quite some time. At times, it has seemed as though protecting the feelings of the moderators in question, being supportive, and maintaining cohesion as a team, have been overriding factors in policy-making decisions. While it certainly is a factor, it has perhaps overshadowed other, equally important concerns - the larger picture being the interests of the site and of the userbase.
You are mistaken on this account. There have been multiple instances of probation in this year. It is an option that the senior staff keeps in mind for situations with repeated instances of the same or similar problems from a mod. For the same reasons as with the protocols mentioned above, as well as out of respect for the mods' privacy, we don't publicize who is on probation. Moderator probations are kept confidential to the senior staff.
When a crisis develops, the userbase wants to see internal acknowledgement, awareness, and constructive criticism in response to moderator-user disputes. They want to know that the administration is aware of the problem, and is on their side at heart - and not simply on the side of their coworker. The overall impression, however, of a divide between how the staff views problems and userbase complaints, and the perception that the staff is more interested in protecting its moderators from overly harsh userbase complaints rather than it is in responding to userbase feedback, is something that should receive some thoughtful attention. I don't mean to suggest that the staff are not interested in responding to userbase feedback - but perhaps naturally, due to the amount of venom and disagreement that has been in the air, that has become a secondary concern, when it ought to be at the very forefront.
You are absolutely correct when you say there's been quite a lot of venom and acidity towards the staff as of late. The staff has been facing little else for the past several months. That being said, we've been taking everything that has been said about us seriously, and any allegation that has even the slightest credibility has been taken into account. I don't need to go far back for an example either. I can point you towards the recent complaints about Water Cooler Talk. After discussion back and forth between the moderation team and the userbase, we reached an acceptable conclusion and worked with it.
That being said, not every complaint is going to result in change. We are watching each complaint, and follow up on each. We investigate and check to see if this is a valid complaint, or if this is something that's a one-time mistake or a constant thing. Some of these complaints are one-time events, and result in the moderator being chastised for their conduct. In other cases, the claim ends up being invalid or without context. When these investigations reveal that we need to act, we do so to make this site better and the staff better for all of our posters.
As of late, due to some decisions that the community is not a fan of, the staff has been under a lot more scrutiny than we normally have been. And this has led to a number of things being frankly blown out of proportion. We are taking every complaint seriously and following up on each, but that doesn't mean that any complaint will result in moderators being let go immediately. We work to fix the problem, not sweep it under the rug, and we see simply getting rid of people as the latter. If we can work with a mod to fix a problem and get a better moderator team for it, as opposed to just drop a good mod and try to replace them, we do so.
Applying that to the situation at hand, Solaran's criticisms of the administration's handling have so far gone unchallenged and unaddressed. If the admin has an explanation for what happened to Solaran, and there are facts that should be brought forward to explain in greater detail what was going on, I think that would certainly help defuse the situation. Or, in the alternative, if there is some merit to Solaran's concerns, it would be very helpful to have the administration make a statement explaining their take on the situation and the steps they're taking to address it.
So far, the reaction by the staff has largely been focused around the exaggerated personal attacks on the staff by the userbase, and on defenses against personal attacks. I would suggest that calmly addressing the substance of Solaran's post, either to explain how it is inaccurate, or to acknowledge points where mistakes were made and there is room for improvement, would be more productive and lead to a quick resolution of the issue.
I agree, we should address them.
Solaran, I am interpreting your post detailing grievances as approval for me to discuss them publicly.
Solaran has had two suspensions that he contested recently.
The first was an autosuspension for flaming out a moderator by PM after receiving a card. We take PM abuse very seriously, it's a much more personal way of attacking another user, and it rises to the level of harassment. No user, mod or not, should have to tolerate that, and we will take the appropriate action wherever it happens. Not all flames by PM trigger this, it's based on severity, but we take a much stronger stance on this than we do for something in-thread. Feel free to check the Suspended/Banned User thread for examples to corroborate this, but out of respect for those users, I will not cite any.
I can't attest to what he was told after it, but it has been standing policy for globals to forward reported PMs of that caliber to admins to decide whether a suspension is warranted. Reviewing the forum rules, I understand this currently falls under discretionary action by the staff, and I will happily raise it for review in the ML to clarify it in the rules. That being said, I stand by the practice.
As to the second suspension: Solaran was suspended for having three active infractions. He told us in his appeal that he could not see the third due to it being bumped off the front page and he somehow couldn't see the other pages. We were unable to replicate this error in testing, but we provided him with screenshots of the rest of his infraction history so as to give him full access to what his history was. He contested by alleging that due to the software error, preventing him from viewing that infraction without assistance, we needed to treat it as if it didn't exist. This argument for appeal was denied as it didn't contest that the 3 infraction points were valid, instead arguing that he should be treated preferentially due to a glitch that had no bearing on him actually becoming suspended.
Regarding his point about a change in leadership affecting site policy, I think he's right, just not in the way he intends. I make it my goal to know as much about the history of this site as I can. I've read pages upon pages upon pages of threads in every lounge, and I'm still reading; it's something I think is valuable to my role on site. I've seen the way the site was run 6 years ago, 7 years ago, 1 year ago. And I wouldn't want to be on staff on that kind of site. Favouritism was rampant, I know of users who got free passes on auto-ban offenses just because they were chummy with the staff. I know of a user who was infracted for "ruining the lulz". I have enormous respect for many of the people who served on staff in those eras, but I cannot believe that such a direction would be good for the site. I like that every time we ban a user, we tell you about it posthaste. I like that every time we infract a user we take the time to have a dialogue with them afterward if they so desire. I like that we strive for impartiality and avoid nepotism. I like that we allow users to discuss grievances with the site openly. I like that a mod can disagree with an admin in the mod lounge and know that his/her opinion still carries weight, that the admin won't just rule by edict. These strike a chord with my value set. Maybe they don't for you, but they are what I am committed to, and I still harbour the idealism to make me believe this is the right course for the site. Our policies have morphed in the past year. We are more responsive to the userbase and we are more committed to being a fair and impartial staff than ever before. Yes, recent leadership has set the site on a new course, and we're experiencing growing pains, but I never want to return to what we once were.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
Applying that to the situation at hand, Solaran's criticisms of the administration's handling have so far gone unchallenged and unaddressed. If the admin has an explanation for what happened to Solaran, and there are facts that should be brought forward to explain in greater detail what was going on, I think that would certainly help defuse the situation.
Thanks for the explanation, ExpiredRascals.
Personally, I didn't expect a response from staff regarding any of Solaran's criticisms because the accusations were so off base. For example, I've seen many criticisms of an unfair staff in my day; but, this is the first time anyone has ever accused them of suspending someone over 2 infractions.
Based on the appeals policy and what we know off staff, I would not find such a criticism credible. It's hard to argue that staff would not agree 2 infractions vs 3 for something so clearcut and staff could always have resorted to claiming an "automatic suspension offense" if it wanted to ban/suspend users with less than 3 infractions, anyways.
I very much agree with everything ER said, and really appreciate that he took the time to type it out.
There are staff shortcomings, but those are tied to inexperience rather than favoritism or the opposite - this staff is very idealistic. I think that previous incarnations of staff have done better than this one in some aspects, like perhaps pure decision making (tied to experience), but in others, like ER explained, this version has the upper hand.
As of late, due to some decisions that the community is not a fan of, the staff has been under a lot more scrutiny than we normally have been. And this has led to a number of things being frankly blown out of proportion. We are taking every complaint seriously and following up on each, but that doesn't mean that any complaint will result in moderators being let go immediately. We work to fix the problem, not sweep it under the rug, and we see simply getting rid of people as the latter.
All i can say that this has changed since nai, you and meddigo (sp?) has taken over. this use to not be the case. it didn't matter what was done or did you were pretty much up a creek without a paddle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Another old timer is leaving. What is happening to this place? I'm sad you're leaving because for every veteran poster that leaves, that is one less voice of reason, concern, and honesty that actually matter on this site.
See ya but hope you will come back some day.
Never found him always to be the most enlightened at times, and he was certainly shaped by the events of his life to which he has apparently overcome but still tinges his worldview. It is that world view that made him unique and interesting and forced people to better explain certain functional problems. In terms of growth, he was showing it over time and grappling with particular issues for a man in his position and age. Provincial conservative flavor with a bit of libertarian strain is always a good to have around because there's a particular point to the way in which those people's culture and lives. Over time that provincial conservatism when refined over time like wine, has a unique and flavorful taste people that has wisdom to it that I have seen in some people I respect greatly. He has that potential, shows that trend at times, and seems to be on that trajectory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Really people, we want to squabble over spam in a goodbye thread from people posting 1-3 words? This is the type of pettiness that leads to worse things.
As for Solaran's lack of 3 active infractions that HE could see; I think it is a fair point. He see's only 2 infractions in his own list, so obviously voices his displeasure at getting a suspension for having "3 infractions" when he sees only 2. The mods/admins can show him all the screenshots of their own lists showing him 3 active ones, but I believe from Solarans point of view, its like trying to trust something you personally feel as dodgy; whether it be a salesman, a person who has historically not been trustworthy or something that you can't trust without personal evidence (his own infraction list). The comparison's aren't exactly the same, but the point is similar.....people tend not to take kindly to decisions they feel are unfair, when they have evidence contradicting it. A small part of the issue may be that, Mods/Admins are supposed to act indifferently and to a higher standard, but they are still human beings as everyone is, and are subject to emotions and personal reasoning that influence their decisions. Not every mod/admin will agree with what is breaking the rules, and some will let emotions get the better of them in situations. The users need to feel that the Moderators are being watched as closely as the users feel they are.
It's sad to see people leave a site like MTGS, as they are sites where we can share and talk about our hobbies with others of similar interests and desires. These should be places where people should feel they can go to enjoy themselves when they are dealing with their hobby, and not get to the point where they need to sever that contact completely. I don't know Solaran at all, but I wish you the best sir.
His point stands. The staff have set a precedent of being lenient on short posts in this part of the site (and let's face it, this was posted in the wrong part of the forum, it really should be in Special Occasions with the rest of the general farewell threads where things are a fair bit more relaxed) as far as replying to posters leaving, signing up or stepping down from staff. He's well aware that the Forum Rules count one-word posts as spam, he's just saying that the rule is relaxed for these circumstances (and have been for a long time, in fact).
Would you really want posters to be infracted for saying goodbye in a farewell thread? Really think about what you're suggesting.
Also, your attitude is the pits. Just saying.
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
Good to know that I can now spam in CI. Thank you, mods! I'm going to go spam the crap out of this subforum now!
And troll. Because apparently that should be allowed.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
To my knowledge, we have never infracted 'goodbye' posts in threads, and I don't want us starting down that path now. These threads are celebrations of the person's past and their good times here, and a statement of 'we're your friends and we'll miss you'. There's room for leniency here. For everyone.
My helpdesk should you need me.
To be fair some of them should be dropping like flies in a room filled with pesticide fogger. But thats my 2 cents. And the recent leavings both announced and unannounced is showing. Plus the first few posts pretty much shows the distaste between the groups.
Historically, leaving threads have been exempt to a number of the definitions of Spam. Saying something to the effect of "May the forces of evil get lost on the way to your house" doesn't advance the discussion, and simply repeating 'goodbye' in its various forms is not an original thought when someone else has said it before you. If we're talking the spam rules, we apply almost none of them to these types of threads. Some wish to inform others of plans, to say their farewells. I felt it was enough to simply say 'so long', informing Solaran that I read his post, that he will be missed, and acknowledging his complaints.
At any rate, it's true that my "goodbye" post does read pretty flippant/kicking-him-on-the-way-out, so I would like to apologize to Solaran for that. It wasn't my intention. The two of us haven't seen eye-to-eye on a number of things, but I respect him as a poster and I'm sad to see him go.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
in any event people i think we can do without the drama there is enough stupid stuff already.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
What about Talore and Teia? Were they being sincere? Especially considering the 'Thanks' that was given?
also check me out on fb
I love seeing the petty squabbles of the mods throwing around power.
I gotta admit, watching this site rot from the inside, and seeing how corrupt things have become makes me a little happy inside.
Saw all of this coming a year ago though.
Big thanks to Rivenor for the sig!!
I don't know if there is anything I can or should say, but whenever I see someone publicly quit - regardless of who it is - I feel bad that the relationship didn't work out. You like MTGS and MTGS seemed to like you. I'm not going to put blame on anyone, but I do hope that the CI Denizens AND the staff alike can read your post and ask themselves "Is it possible that I am part of the problem? If so, what can I do to keep this from happening again?"
Good luck.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Which really says more about you than the site when you get right down to it.
As far as the 'Thanks' to Solaran's post goes, I agree it comes off poorly. Regardless of how it was intended, that's not going to look like anything other than a mod flipping off a particularly problematic poster, especially given that it seems as though the staff is on fart watch with every possible indiscretion seized upon like people were eagerly anticipating it. I don't think it was a smart move.
But I do understand it. If a user is clearly unhappy to the point of being disgruntled, has made it a point to be belligerent about the rules and has generally just been negative and a source of grief (and not just for the staff), I can empathize with being alright with that user choosing to leave. Making the decision that you're not happy with things and it's time to let go and move on is a mature thing to do. I liken it to when I decided to step down as admin, had there been a 'Thanks' option at that time, I'd expect it would have gotten a few. I was a miserable bastard by that point and it was a good thing when I walked away. Not just for myself, but for those interacting with me as well.
So, Solaran, I'm going to expand upon my earlier goodbye to you. I don't know you personally, but I honestly do wish you the best. And I didn't really know you on the site either since I kinda made it a point to avoid you as best I could, but it takes strength to acknowledge when something isn't making you happy and you need to walk away. You could have made everyone around you as unhappy as you are, like I was starting to, but you didn't. And for that, I thank you.
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 HORROR
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
1) The person feels frustrated/helpless to affect outcome
2) They feel regret and a sense of loss of something they care about "six-years"
3) They accept that its a lost cause
@ Solaran, I never agree much with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.
I wish you all the best in whatever you do in the future.
See ya but hope you will come back some day.
hope the rest of the internet finds you well.
There are certainly more productive ways these concerns could have been raised and resolved.
It also paints a monochromatic picture. Even those personnel that many users, including myself, may have some reservations about, also have strengths and potentially room for improvement. And I think that things have been improving.
But with regard to the fact that on many sites, a different and far less forgiving approach would have been taken in response to a number of the issues that have been raised - I think that's quite accurate.
The site has been very forgiving of moderator error throughout its history. It's also, perhaps, been less judicious in selecting its personnel than it possibly should have been at times. However, to a point, offering guidance and leniency and treating your fellow moderators with respect, and having clear lines of communication with them on how to improve, and is an excellent and superior approach to what many sites are faced with.
I also don't mean to suggest that moderators are not held accountable for breaches of the forum rules. I don't think there's much of an argument that there's a double standard - over the past year, major steps and commitments have been taken to ensure that moderators are held to the same standard as the userbase, and I'm satisfied, notwithstanding the earlier posts in this thread, that those commitments are as strong today as they ever were.
However, there is probably some call for continued dialogue with the userbase or with representatives such as Belgareth regarding the appropriate calibration of moderators, and developing more effective personnel policies with a clear conception of when a moderator's performance should be considered unsatisfactory, and a clear process of the steps which should be taken to improve the situation.
With regards to Belgareth in particular, I think his presence as a lounge consultant would be of inestimable value to the staff. He has demonstrated a clear ability to communicate effectively with the staff in difficult circumstances such as the WCT issue, and his experience, integrity, and dedication to the site would be maximally effective in that position.
But returning to the idea of a clear process in response to persistent moderator complaints, I think the probationary model is a good one, although it hasn't been used or revised in quite some time. At times, it has seemed as though protecting the feelings of the moderators in question, being supportive, and maintaining cohesion as a team, have been overriding factors in policy-making decisions. While it certainly is a factor, it has perhaps overshadowed other, equally important concerns - the larger picture being the interests of the site and of the userbase.
When a crisis develops, the userbase wants to see internal acknowledgement, awareness, and constructive criticism in response to moderator-user disputes. They want to know that the administration is aware of the problem, and is on their side at heart - and not simply on the side of their coworker. The overall impression, however, of a divide between how the staff views problems and userbase complaints, and the perception that the staff is more interested in protecting its moderators from overly harsh userbase complaints rather than it is in responding to userbase feedback, is something that should receive some thoughtful attention. I don't mean to suggest that the staff are not interested in responding to userbase feedback - but perhaps naturally, due to the amount of venom and disagreement that has been in the air, that has become a secondary concern, when it ought to be at the very forefront.
Applying that to the situation at hand, Solaran's criticisms of the administration's handling have so far gone unchallenged and unaddressed. If the admin has an explanation for what happened to Solaran, and there are facts that should be brought forward to explain in greater detail what was going on, I think that would certainly help defuse the situation. Or, in the alternative, if there is some merit to Solaran's concerns, it would be very helpful to have the administration make a statement explaining their take on the situation and the steps they're taking to address it.
So far, the reaction by the staff has largely been focused around the exaggerated personal attacks on the staff by the userbase, and on defenses against personal attacks. I would suggest that calmly addressing the substance of Solaran's post, either to explain how it is inaccurate, or to acknowledge points where mistakes were made and there is room for improvement, would be more productive and lead to a quick resolution of the issue.
Without going into specifics, I can tell you that Solaran is incorrect about the "suspended for two infractions" part; looking at his profile, he definitely had three active infractions at the time. I can't speak to his inability to see further infractions, but there were definitely three.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I will barn this on multiple levels. Azrael is certainly right that we take a very different approach than most sites, and it is manifested at all levels.
First: Our moderators have much higher expectations of accountability and professionalism than is seen elsewhere. Laughing in their face or being disrespectful to users are things that we just don't tolerate and reprimand heavily for. This hasn't always been the case, but we've been moving towards this point for a long long time.
Second: It wasn't always this way in our site's history, but we are obsessive about giving users a medium through which to voice their problems, to the point that we have between 6 and 7 (depending on how you count them) channels for voicing complaints.
Third: While we have some of the stricter rules sets that you'll find on internet forums, we're extremely lenient in how we apply them. Most anything you see on our reasons for suspension would receive a ban elsewhere. We believe people are inherently good at heart and our rules, while strict, offer the maximum opportunity to learn to follow them. Additionally, our policy to allow previously banned users to return is something that I've seen replicated nowhere else. Our appeals system is similarly unique.
I agree completely.
/barn
We do have a series of protocols that we follow regarding moderator misconduct. It is not something that is terribly specific on repercussions, but rather a guide on how to escalate the assistance a moderator recieves in an effort to help them better do their job and thus avoid termination.
No, I will not be releasing these protocols to the public; they are confidential to the senior staff, and I'd rather them not be used as a weapon in the same way the CoC was misappropriated.
The LC position is extremely limited in those that are accepted. To date there have only been two (Sene and {MikeyG}). I don't mind having the staff consider him, but I can make no promises beyond that.
You are mistaken on this account. There have been multiple instances of probation in this year. It is an option that the senior staff keeps in mind for situations with repeated instances of the same or similar problems from a mod. For the same reasons as with the protocols mentioned above, as well as out of respect for the mods' privacy, we don't publicize who is on probation. Moderator probations are kept confidential to the senior staff.
You are absolutely correct when you say there's been quite a lot of venom and acidity towards the staff as of late. The staff has been facing little else for the past several months. That being said, we've been taking everything that has been said about us seriously, and any allegation that has even the slightest credibility has been taken into account. I don't need to go far back for an example either. I can point you towards the recent complaints about Water Cooler Talk. After discussion back and forth between the moderation team and the userbase, we reached an acceptable conclusion and worked with it.
That being said, not every complaint is going to result in change. We are watching each complaint, and follow up on each. We investigate and check to see if this is a valid complaint, or if this is something that's a one-time mistake or a constant thing. Some of these complaints are one-time events, and result in the moderator being chastised for their conduct. In other cases, the claim ends up being invalid or without context. When these investigations reveal that we need to act, we do so to make this site better and the staff better for all of our posters.
As of late, due to some decisions that the community is not a fan of, the staff has been under a lot more scrutiny than we normally have been. And this has led to a number of things being frankly blown out of proportion. We are taking every complaint seriously and following up on each, but that doesn't mean that any complaint will result in moderators being let go immediately. We work to fix the problem, not sweep it under the rug, and we see simply getting rid of people as the latter. If we can work with a mod to fix a problem and get a better moderator team for it, as opposed to just drop a good mod and try to replace them, we do so.
I agree, we should address them.
Solaran, I am interpreting your post detailing grievances as approval for me to discuss them publicly.
Solaran has had two suspensions that he contested recently.
The first was an autosuspension for flaming out a moderator by PM after receiving a card. We take PM abuse very seriously, it's a much more personal way of attacking another user, and it rises to the level of harassment. No user, mod or not, should have to tolerate that, and we will take the appropriate action wherever it happens. Not all flames by PM trigger this, it's based on severity, but we take a much stronger stance on this than we do for something in-thread. Feel free to check the Suspended/Banned User thread for examples to corroborate this, but out of respect for those users, I will not cite any.
I can't attest to what he was told after it, but it has been standing policy for globals to forward reported PMs of that caliber to admins to decide whether a suspension is warranted. Reviewing the forum rules, I understand this currently falls under discretionary action by the staff, and I will happily raise it for review in the ML to clarify it in the rules. That being said, I stand by the practice.
As to the second suspension: Solaran was suspended for having three active infractions. He told us in his appeal that he could not see the third due to it being bumped off the front page and he somehow couldn't see the other pages. We were unable to replicate this error in testing, but we provided him with screenshots of the rest of his infraction history so as to give him full access to what his history was. He contested by alleging that due to the software error, preventing him from viewing that infraction without assistance, we needed to treat it as if it didn't exist. This argument for appeal was denied as it didn't contest that the 3 infraction points were valid, instead arguing that he should be treated preferentially due to a glitch that had no bearing on him actually becoming suspended.
Regarding his point about a change in leadership affecting site policy, I think he's right, just not in the way he intends. I make it my goal to know as much about the history of this site as I can. I've read pages upon pages upon pages of threads in every lounge, and I'm still reading; it's something I think is valuable to my role on site. I've seen the way the site was run 6 years ago, 7 years ago, 1 year ago. And I wouldn't want to be on staff on that kind of site. Favouritism was rampant, I know of users who got free passes on auto-ban offenses just because they were chummy with the staff. I know of a user who was infracted for "ruining the lulz". I have enormous respect for many of the people who served on staff in those eras, but I cannot believe that such a direction would be good for the site. I like that every time we ban a user, we tell you about it posthaste. I like that every time we infract a user we take the time to have a dialogue with them afterward if they so desire. I like that we strive for impartiality and avoid nepotism. I like that we allow users to discuss grievances with the site openly. I like that a mod can disagree with an admin in the mod lounge and know that his/her opinion still carries weight, that the admin won't just rule by edict. These strike a chord with my value set. Maybe they don't for you, but they are what I am committed to, and I still harbour the idealism to make me believe this is the right course for the site. Our policies have morphed in the past year. We are more responsive to the userbase and we are more committed to being a fair and impartial staff than ever before. Yes, recent leadership has set the site on a new course, and we're experiencing growing pains, but I never want to return to what we once were.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Personally, I didn't expect a response from staff regarding any of Solaran's criticisms because the accusations were so off base. For example, I've seen many criticisms of an unfair staff in my day; but, this is the first time anyone has ever accused them of suspending someone over 2 infractions.
Based on the appeals policy and what we know off staff, I would not find such a criticism credible. It's hard to argue that staff would not agree 2 infractions vs 3 for something so clearcut and staff could always have resorted to claiming an "automatic suspension offense" if it wanted to ban/suspend users with less than 3 infractions, anyways.
There are staff shortcomings, but those are tied to inexperience rather than favoritism or the opposite - this staff is very idealistic. I think that previous incarnations of staff have done better than this one in some aspects, like perhaps pure decision making (tied to experience), but in others, like ER explained, this version has the upper hand.
All i can say that this has changed since nai, you and meddigo (sp?) has taken over. this use to not be the case. it didn't matter what was done or did you were pretty much up a creek without a paddle.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Never found him always to be the most enlightened at times, and he was certainly shaped by the events of his life to which he has apparently overcome but still tinges his worldview. It is that world view that made him unique and interesting and forced people to better explain certain functional problems. In terms of growth, he was showing it over time and grappling with particular issues for a man in his position and age. Provincial conservative flavor with a bit of libertarian strain is always a good to have around because there's a particular point to the way in which those people's culture and lives. Over time that provincial conservatism when refined over time like wine, has a unique and flavorful taste people that has wisdom to it that I have seen in some people I respect greatly. He has that potential, shows that trend at times, and seems to be on that trajectory.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As for Solaran's lack of 3 active infractions that HE could see; I think it is a fair point. He see's only 2 infractions in his own list, so obviously voices his displeasure at getting a suspension for having "3 infractions" when he sees only 2. The mods/admins can show him all the screenshots of their own lists showing him 3 active ones, but I believe from Solarans point of view, its like trying to trust something you personally feel as dodgy; whether it be a salesman, a person who has historically not been trustworthy or something that you can't trust without personal evidence (his own infraction list). The comparison's aren't exactly the same, but the point is similar.....people tend not to take kindly to decisions they feel are unfair, when they have evidence contradicting it. A small part of the issue may be that, Mods/Admins are supposed to act indifferently and to a higher standard, but they are still human beings as everyone is, and are subject to emotions and personal reasoning that influence their decisions. Not every mod/admin will agree with what is breaking the rules, and some will let emotions get the better of them in situations. The users need to feel that the Moderators are being watched as closely as the users feel they are.
It's sad to see people leave a site like MTGS, as they are sites where we can share and talk about our hobbies with others of similar interests and desires. These should be places where people should feel they can go to enjoy themselves when they are dealing with their hobby, and not get to the point where they need to sever that contact completely. I don't know Solaran at all, but I wish you the best sir.
WBG Karador GBW
R Daretti R
RG Omnath GR
WRG Modern Burn GRW
WB Modern Tokens BW
DCI Rules Advisor as of 5/18/2015