Dion

Poppin' in to say 'ello

@Aksera Pray tell does Australia-land always use GMT? I was under the impression that you guys used American standard for some reason. :/ Regardless, welcome to the forum, and do enjoy your time here!

Vivid Recollections: Alone at Last (Life is Strange-esque RP... with horror) [High Casual]

@Surtr Aight, under the assumption that I can play even without knowing much about the mentioned inspirations, count me in for now.

Vivid Recollections: Alone at Last (Life is Strange-esque RP... with horror) [High Casual]

@Surtr What is the posting speed going to be like? Would I be able to keep up if I had an internship to do and other obligations?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Why let in just a bit of a problem when you can let in none of it at all?

@Andreyich

Countries like Sweden have a collapsing social system that is dying under the weight of a greying populace. Germany has a similar problem. If they don't let in these immigrants (because that's what they are even if they act like refugees) their country will need to adapt to a greying population and change their social system and that'd be pretty bad because of path dependency.

There's a good reason to let them in, it's just a shame that they're forcing the others that don't have that reason to do the same. For example the Netherlands has no need for immigrants because we already have too many people and too few houses as it is.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Gotcha.

Yeah, it's inefficient. Still... I mean let's stick with ocean analogies. There are not a whole lot of shark attacks in a given year -- but we still try to protect ocean-goers from sharks. If the lifeguard blows that shark-whistle (do they have shark whistles? Shark alarms? Shark cowbells, I bet it's cowbells). If the lifeguard rings that shark-cowbell, you get your butt out of the damn water.

I think the government has to be a little paranoid -- it's their job. NSA phone monitoring is a LOT paranoid, and it's probably a violation of civil liberties, and I'd like it to stop. Browsing facebook is a happier medium, and like I said I'm still not crazy about it -- but I understand why it's happening, and they're not literally insane for thinking it up.

@mdk

Sorry for the late reply, it kinda slipped my mind.

Yeah, you're right, there's not a whole lot of shark attacks in a year but if you get attacked, you obviously think 'man this sucks.' I'm not denying that, it's absolutely true and we should do what we can to prevent shark attacks. But I feel like in most cases we're not really looking at shark attacks (shark attacks being the few and far between large attacks like 9/11, Nice, Stockholm, etc.) but more so at a smaller stream of fish that might have similar sized, similarly colored fish in them that are predatory in nature. They're hard to find, naturally, and even if you find one, there are ten more for that one you just caught.

That doesn't mean we should try, but things are a bit different than many people think. You seem to be aware of that though.

As for paranoia, I also agree, it's the job to be a bit paranoid of the government. But... I should explain that I study safety and security management so my position in this is a bit different perhaps. This thing you're describing is the paradox of security versus privacy. It's a really standard thing but the rule is that you always trade like so; security <-----------------> privacy. For every step towards security you take, your citizens will have less privacy, and for every step towards privacy.. you get the point. There are things that suddenly push a country to either side, for example the 9/11 attacks pushed America and its' citizens HEAVILY towards the security, resulting in PATRIOT act which Americans are still suffering from because as it turns out that act was supposed to last just during the war, but then they thought 'oh shit we can use this to monitor our own people.. nice' and kept it. It was never meant for that but here we are.

It's smart though, I'll give them that. As a citizen, I'm naturally against these kind of malpractices, but if I were them? Holy shit, I'd be rolling in the transcripts from everyone's facebook feeds, emails, phonecalls, etc. It's genius.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

@Rilla Have you looked at the last few pages? Just close it nothing will come out of this that hasn't already been said 300 times. I spoke to two moderators, got some answers, and I know where we're at. That's all I need really. Ideally I'd still like @Hank to comment on the moderator selection process but I think by the time we get to that, the thread will be a shitfest.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

I feel like we're talking about two separate things. Is it good of me to be an asshole to people? No. But should it ever be a reason not to do your job as an admin or moderator? No. Both sides in agreement now? Okay, good. Yes @Catchamber it wouldn't surprise me if they delayed responses to people they don't like or preferably don't spend as much time on me, I completely understand their reasoning for it too, but in theory it shouldn't happen. I know I'm a big pain like that, so I don't blame them.

Either way, besides feeling like we're talking past each other and not to each other, I also feel like the thread has reached it's life expectancy and it's only downhill from here (really, it was downhill from the start) but I got what I wanted from it which was a converstation with two moderators about the state of things and some explanation as to what is going on. I'll let the moderators disclose that information at their own pace I suppose because it seems that, even if we were all in agreement that things have to change, nothing will actually happen until the head honcho is here for a prolonged period of time again, and that seems unlikely to happen within a timeframe where I would accept it and shut my mouth for a week or two.

@Ruby I'll just politely request you lock the thread because from my understanding the useful pointers have already been put into the moderator forum. Hide the thread, leave it, it's up to you, I don't really have any need for this one I think.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

@Odin

<Snipped quote>

Right so I'm not here to kiss the butts of the mods or anything but this quote makes me wonder why you haven't tuned down the vitriol. I mean if you are an asshole to someone and they treat you fairly anyway maybe you should stop being an asshole.

@Kratesis

Who is to say I went out of my way to be an asshole, though? I can't recall myself doing that, and I'm not really about to take responsibility for the actions of others. Like me and her agreed; we don't have to like each other and neither of us hates or dislikes the other, and as long as we're both working towards the common goal of improving RPG, there is no need for hostilities. Do you think me critiquing her alongside the other moderators is equal to me singling her out and telling her she's bad at everything she does? I don't think so.

How does this connect to me and my post? I assume you are responding to me here but if you aren't then heads up-- you forgot to tag them.

@Kratesis

Oops. Well, not like it stopped them from replying anyway.

I heard you were banned from the Discord but I had no idea you were banned from the site.

@Kratesis

I wasn't. _Yet.

Regardless, my point wasn't about any specific instance in your past. It was about your behavior in regards to the mods and what you can realistically expect when you behave that way.

The bottom line is you are very abrasive and friction creates heat. Behaving as if you exist in a universe filled with robots only works if you are in a universe filled with robots.

@Kratesis

Pray tell what kind of behavior are you talking about? Does critique equal harassment in your world? Last I heard the moderators partook in this thread and had some good things to say. I'm not sure why you perceive that to be different?

<Snipped quote by Odin>
I never said that it's okay for moderators to not respond to reports. Let me repost our exchange:

The Exchange

You: "Communication skills of the community itself.
I have tried numerous times to open communication channels but (in the case of me talking to mods) I either get ignored, get talked to in a condescending manner, or I just get promises that are not followed up on. This is my own experience so perhaps others have had more luck. The original comment was talking more about the entire community as a whole but I've not felt like there was any place where I could even 'improve' my communication skills."

Me: "Perhaps there's tension between you and some of the moderators, which makes them less inclined to speak with you. I haven't had any problems with talking to them about various site-related topics, but that's just my experience."

You: "I would like to think moderators are open to talking to everyone whenever they are available regardless of their personal opinion of said person, because that's what they're there to do."

Me: "I'd also like to think so. But, I'd also like to think that the police would always respond as quickly as possible to each and every emergency call, no matter how significant of a criminal record certain callers possess. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this."

You: ".. I can't, you're just proving my point - you expect the police to react accordingly regardless of this persons' background. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't make it right."

Me: "Should you become a staff member, would you be alright with me attempting to engage with you in the manner that you've engaged with Ruby? If so, I'll be sure to publicly criticize you if you retain your ghost status, whenever you act in a condescending manner, and each time you insult me and my abilities. Not only that, I'll repeatedly question your capacity as a staff member, condemn you for not meeting my arbitrary definition of activeness, and constantly bring up lists of potential improvements that could be made with regards to the forum, chat, and staff. We'll see how quickly you respond to each of my reports."

@catchamber

Yes, I would be alright with that. However that is acting under the estimation that I'd ever be considered for that position and actually get it and it's no secret that that will never happen. But yes, I would be OK with that.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

This is one third of the issue here. If someone isn't considerate when they interact with others then others are unlikely to be considerate in return.

If you interact with a mod and display disregard for their social status, a lack of respect for their time and trample over all standards of common courtesy then don't be surprised when you end up banned.

@Kratesis

The real joke here is that I still expect Ruby to do her job when working with me, and so far she has. In fact, she's usually quicker than anyone else, so Catchambers entire argument is irrelevant. In fact, it's the reason I didn't reply because the answer would be that I'd still reply as soon as I can because apparently, unlike Catchambers, I think when you're a moderator you should just do what you have to do. There are no exceptions to that.

Personal anecdotes about me and my behaviour towards Ruby won't really help either. As far as I am concerned, after me and Ruby spoke yesterday, it's behind us. Regardless, just saying 'hehehehe you said she did a bad job once!' isn't really a good argument is it.

More over I'm not surprised I was banned. In fact, I did that myself. I deserved it, I broke the rules, but in my mind I did it for a good reason. Telling random women you'll lick their belly buttons isn't exactly good behaviour and I was making sure to remind this person of that.

Unless, of course, you were referring to someone entirely different.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

@Ruby Fair enough - but the original point stands. I didn't intend to accuse of nepotism - that's what Kangaroo turned it into and in my mind you and perhaps his reappointment were the only two cases where I thought previous friendships had to do with it in part. Regardless, the original point was that elections are dumb because of nepotism, random drawings are dumb because you can't ensure quality, and whimsically nominating random people by the mods is dumb because you are missing out on candidates that would do really good but who have been demotivated by occurrences or just.. are not very visible or known.

An improvement can be made here and - god forbid me saying it - we might just have to look to Iwaku to see what they're doing because this is the one thing where I'd learn from them.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Yes I completely agree that quality is subject to a lack of objectivity, but my initial point remains is that who has ever registered me as a bad mod who should never return. As far as I am aware, it's no-one. Ergo an argument that my reappointment as a mod as being a sign of nepotism is most likely null and void and symbolistic of a failing of the system. If it's the second, please go ahead and tell me what I'm doing wrong, I welcome constructive criticism; the main criticismIi've received thus far was that I was too lenient.

@Kangaroo

I.. no, I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, I was raising the point that after you got reappointed you were still not as active as some as the others. You were inactive for 3 days when I wrote it, so I presumed you were just busy. It was never about good or bad mod. If you want constructive criticism then I'd say log in more often? Just because you're on discord doesn't mean there aren't users who might PM you because they don't know you're not on RPG as much. It's not that much effort to log in daily once, right, so I don't see the harm there.

Who would you consider as bad mods considering I can only think of one nomination that I personally made in the past who hasn't made mod. The rest hasn't been direct naming as far as I am aware, so you're either accusing a mod directly or making speculative judgements. As for the consideration process, it is mostly based off the opinion of the current staff. To make something public that was previously private, I nominated Nutts as my successor because I believed he was right for the role and I stand by that nomination.

@Kangaroo

Again, not really my point. I'll state it clearly so it cannot be misunderstood or misread;

If you do not have a process for moderatorship that includes some form of application, you are potentially missing out on moderator candidates that are perfect, because you are not allowing them to partake. By nominating people you are limiting yourself to people you know. By having one staff member i.e. Hank determine potential candidates and making a choice you're limiting yourself even further.

It's not about the current mod selection in this case, it's about the process of getting there. Like I said to Ruby, look at Iwaku - they have a process where you can apply with relevant information and then the staff decides who is good enough.

I believe the main part of this is asking why I wasn't present on forums? as I said, I would be active on discord when needed but may have periods where I fall back to relying on push notifications.

@Kangaroo

No, I'm saying if you'd informed people about your inactivity, that would've been better because I would've understood your situation instead of having to make assumptions.

Looking Back - 5 months have passed, what now?

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Having reread the conversation, I did misinterpret it but I guess I will address the points raised nonetheless. This may seem like an argument of semantics but sometimes definitions are important; I personally consider nepotism to be promotion/selection in spite of ability; ergo the appointment of someone right for the role does not entail nepotism. Am I perhaps arrogant by suggesting that I am a good mod? perhaps, but that is built off the commentary of multiple people from different cliques.

@Kangaroo

What constitutes a good mod and what not is, also, entirely subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but as Hank has previously stated, he prefers janitor-style mods and I myself prefer a different style of mods. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different preferences.

I think there are plenty of good candidates for moderator positions that, as far as I know, have never been considered, where as I do know some people that I personally think are probably one of the worst picks you could make have been considered. Perhaps for that reason I'll ask @Hank if he could run me/us through the process that you go through when you are being considered for moderator. Or perhaps one of the other mods could. I'm interested to see what the process is from start to finish. How do you get considered for the position all the way to how is the acceptance of a new moderator announced.

The idea I have is that at the moment it's entirely whimsical and based on nominations from other moderators. You should be aware that you're missing out on a lot of good candidates like @Nytem4re or others, who by now have lost either the backing or the desire to help at all.

Is the fact that I have previous experience with the mod team and a history of interaction a factor in my reappointment; absolutely. It's the same as a company rehiring someone who'd previosuly done a good job, they're hired off merit and the knowledge that they can perform with the team currently assembled.

The ruby reappointment I can't comment much on as it was during my period of well documented absence but my own I am happy to discuss beyond my personal issues. I'd put out an offer to resign from being a moderator around a year before my actual leaving because I recognised that i didn't have the same activity that I thought would be required from a mod. The feedback i received that there was no cap on mod numbers and I was free to continue because my opinion and perspective on issues was desired.

When I resigned was because I was cutting ties to focus on some central personal issues, when I resolved them I sent a message to Hank and made the point that the issues were resolved and that I was more free in terms of time. About two months later he contacted me and asked if i was still returning because he wanted my opinion for the defence of a genre thread/event. That is the circumstances of my return.

@Kangaroo

I don't and didn't mean to pry in your personal life - when you resigned I respected it because you'd shown that you were critiquing yourself as well and I liked that. When I named you here, I critiqued you for still not being as active as others. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, I can't tell as I am not omniscient. The reasons for that are irrelevant to me if I am not aware of them - this is why the suggestion of a moderator thread where mods can post status updates or other things is a good suggestion because it makes people aware that one given mod might be away for a few days - in this case I was unaware of the reasoning for you being gone and therefore could not make a weighted judgement. You're telling me now, yes, but if I'd known this prior, perhaps I would've understood why you were gone instead of having to judge that for myself.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Yeah, at that point, we'd had some casual conversations when he worked at a resort, but nothing Guild related. Our first Guild related chats were about an issue I had unrelated to him, and when I realized maybe it'd be good if I went back and helped site staff again. Hank didn't appoint me the second time, either; that was Mahz.

@Ruby

I thought it was Hank as I seemed to recall reading that somewhere, but in that case my apologies. You don't feel like your prior friendship with Mahz might've influenced the rather quick reappointment whatsoever? I do.