THE SUBMISSION BOX [Moderator Transparency Discussion Thread]

[Night]

Let's be honest at least now, you're not getting demodded. You were selected by the mod team. They has "high hopes for you" - ie, you're not going anywhere.

 

Let's dispel with that notion. They've kept less controversial and inactive mods than you on.

 

Now that's done, if you think your method works, then do something I guess. I haven't seen your new method yet.

 

The problem WAS how you were selected, the problem now IS what you've done (or rather not done) for your trial period. Your explanation defending Evil for promoting you doesn't answer the criticism. At least not regarding my point.

 

I'm curious why you were promoted to mod after not doing anything in your trial period. Giga's problems (if they remain) are separate. The problem in the future WILL be if you continue as you have in the last month.

 

Yes you were busy, so was Birdie. She stepped down. You did not. She did stuff actively while she was around. I'm still waiting to see what people claim you did during the same period.

 

Dismissing everything negative about as a witch hunt will only make that more likely to pass. Them blinders helps no-one

 

You were given a chance in your trial period, and you're being given a second chance now it seems. Please don't squander it. I'm asking more than ordering; even if you do squander it, nothing is gonna happen to you or your position. YCM just won't improve. 

 

If he doesn't do sheet and/or doesn't do it well I'll personally demote him. 

Now you can stop worrying that nothing will happen because I'm far too prideful to go back on my word. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

In that case I look forward to a new age of more amicable Mod-Userbase relations w/ our PR mod spearheading the effort

[mitchermitcher]

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/362251-the-moderator-report-staff-transparency-thread/?p=6999301

 

In response to this(because I can't funking quote it)

 

I'd rather the suggestion prohibit political discussions in the status bar instead of just plain out 'political content'. The latter is way too wide a blanket ban that basically gives you the right to punish anyone for posting news that's politically relevant anywhere. This rule, I will assume, is being proposed because of the sheet flinging that results from people posting political content in the status bar, rather than the initial posting of that content itself. It'd be much more natural to target the resulting arguments instead of the initial status message. If someone wants to debate/discuss/shame the initial status poster they can make an actual debates thread, which is then subject to that section's rules and standards.

[Dad]

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/362251-the-moderator-report-staff-transparency-thread/?p=6999301

 

In response to this(because I can't funking quote it)

 

I'd rather the suggestion prohibit political discussions in the status bar instead of just plain out 'political content'. The latter is way too wide a blanket ban that basically gives you the right to punish anyone for posting news that's politically relevant anywhere. This rule, I will assume, is being proposed because of the sheet flinging that results from people posting political content in the status bar, rather than the initial posting of that content itself. It'd be much more natural to target the resulting arguments instead of the initial status message. If someone wants to debate/discuss/shame the initial status poster they can make an actual debates thread, which is then subject to that section's rules and standards.

Good lookin. I'll bring this up. Much clearer than what i had in mind.

[Maeriberii Haan]

What would constitute as a political content in this case, for clarification?

[Dad]

For example:  

 

Anything about Russia and Syria discrepancies against the U.S.

Anything about the U.S. bombing another country over seas

Anything about statistics as it relates to voting from elections current or previous

Anything about how Islam impacts the world (positively or negatively)

Anything about U.S. laws that are changing or will be changed

Anything about the UK split

 

Really I could go on, but its easier to ask me if something is okay to post.  However, this rule has not yet been implemented or refined, so feel free to carry on as you normally would.

[Blake]

Seems like a stupid idea.

 

If you think specific people are out of line, weed them out. That is far too broad, and only serves to allow the power to shut down basically anything, re:Islam example.

 

It's overkill in the first place, and it should not be acted upon by any means, because the politics are not the issue.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

At this point, political discussion isn't the problem. The issue comes from political rhetoric used by both sides of the spectrum.

 

Quite frankly, if someone put up a status saying "I agree with Trump's decision to strike against Syria" there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. As long as people can properly conduct themselves (which should be a standard they are held to regardless of whether the subject matter is political) there really isn't an issue.

 

Making an ultimately arbitrary distinction like this will just change the flavor of the status bar's toxicity.

 

That said, if this ends up working, I'm not going to oppose it. I have had my mind changed many times before.

[Maeriberii Haan]

i feel that it's a bit late for this kind of rule to be implemented - as far as I am aware, even with the events of late, a proper urgency of the implementation of such rule isn't really there anymore. Comparing the first to third quarter of 2016 to the situation now, conflicts caused by such discussion are minimal now. I mean I guess Shard now picking up the pace of posting such statuses but the political statuses of now are far less attention-grabbing and polarizing as back then. Without a sense of urgency, I'm unsure about the semi-sudden decision to discuss this now of all time.

 

I'm not opposed to this by any means, in fact I still have the same stance on this from last year (those statuses were especially quite an eyesore back then - and still somewhat disappointed that my proposal back then got buried due to the sexual content debacle). It's just that, right now it's far better to just impose a standard of conduct and push more intensive discussion and debating to the section it's meant to, something like Giga and Mitch said.

 

Doubts on effectiveness aside, between this and the [uSER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST] thread, it's pretty clear that there really is an issue on our general memberbase. Not one person, not a few person, not just one side of the argument. The taint in our community is in everything, instead of a clear rotten part now. That is the issue we have.

 

Mods are not glorified forum janitors. While I don't want to see them being unjust despot either, it's situations like this that calls for them to properly exert their authority to control and contain the masses. Create a standard of conduct, stop conflicts and deal with both sides fairly and sternly, and in general, do whatever is necessary for the sake of the forum, not for the sake of vocal memberbases of any kind. So if a proposal's primary issue is the worry that some people might use it to shame or mock the people that got warned (and promptly derailing the thread with ad hominems anyway), just shoot down such behavior whenever they appear.

 

Just be harsh as necessary, I guess that's the tl;dr from here.

[Phantom Roxas]

For example:  

 

Anything about Russia and Syria discrepancies against the U.S.

Anything about the U.S. bombing another country over seas

Anything about statistics as it relates to voting from elections current or previous

Anything about how Islam impacts the world (positively or negatively)

Anything about U.S. laws that are changing or will be changed

Anything about the UK split

 

Really I could go on, but its easier to ask me if something is okay to post.  However, this rule has not yet been implemented or refined, so feel free to carry on as you normally would.

This is a rather selfish question, but would this also cover "Calexit" / Yes California, or just anything to do with California secession in general? It does have a fair amount of overlap with the points U.S. laws and the UK split. If that's too broad, then to be more specific, I imagine that comments like "I would be happy to roll tanks into your state" should be considered out of line. When statuses reach the point where a user is genuinely advocating a real life war against another user, that's too far.

[Dad]

This is a rather selfish question, but would this also cover "Calexit" / Yes California, or just anything to do with California secession in general? It does have a fair amount of overlap with the points U.S. laws and the UK split. If that's too broad, then to be more specific, I imagine that comments like "I would be happy to roll tanks into your state" should be considered out of line. When statuses reach the point where a user is genuinely advocating a real life war against another user, that's too far.

 

It's so broad that I actually forgot about this topic.  That's bad news for the implementation of such a poorly constructed rule (on my part obviously).

 

i feel that it's a bit late for this kind of rule to be implemented - as far as I am aware, even with the events of late, a proper urgency of the implementation of such rule isn't really there anymore. Comparing the first to third quarter of 2016 to the situation now, conflicts caused by such discussion are minimal now. I mean I guess Shard now picking up the pace of posting such statuses but the political statuses of now are far less attention-grabbing and polarizing as back then. Without a sense of urgency, I'm unsure about the semi-sudden decision to discuss this now of all time.

 

I'm not opposed to this by any means, in fact I still have the same stance on this from last year (those statuses were especially quite an eyesore back then - and still somewhat disappointed that my proposal back then got buried due to the sexual content debacle). It's just that, right now it's far better to just impose a standard of conduct and push more intensive discussion and debating to the section it's meant to, something like Giga and Mitch said.

 

Doubts on effectiveness aside, between this and the [uSER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST] thread, it's pretty clear that there really is an issue on our general memberbase. Not one person, not a few person, not just one side of the argument. The taint in our community is in everything, instead of a clear rotten part now. That is the issue we have.

 

Mods are not glorified forum janitors. While I don't want to see them being unjust despot either, it's situations like this that calls for them to properly exert their authority to control and contain the masses. Create a standard of conduct, stop conflicts and deal with both sides fairly and sternly, and in general, do whatever is necessary for the sake of the forum, not for the sake of vocal memberbases of any kind. So if a proposal's primary issue is the worry that some people might use it to shame or mock the people that got warned (and promptly derailing the thread with ad hominems anyway), just shoot down such behavior whenever they appear.

 

Just be harsh as necessary, I guess that's the tl;dr from here.

 

At this point, political discussion isn't the problem. The issue comes from political rhetoric used by both sides of the spectrum.

 

Quite frankly, if someone put up a status saying "I agree with Trump's decision to strike against Syria" there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. As long as people can properly conduct themselves (which should be a standard they are held to regardless of whether the subject matter is political) there really isn't an issue.

 

Making an ultimately arbitrary distinction like this will just change the flavor of the status bar's toxicity.

 

That said, if this ends up working, I'm not going to oppose it. I have had my mind changed many times before.

 

These are all fantastic points.  And you're absolutely right.  Discussion shouldn't be restricted due to a few pains in the ass.  I think I'm going to withdraw my request and just look to punish stupid people in the status bar more often.

 

Thank you for your feedback.

[Nigel Deathwish]

only suggestion i have is maybe setting up somehow the ability to have our cards available to be mailed to us (as in the card be mailed to its creator)? even if it means costing a dollar or two. i dont even care if it can be tournament legal i just want to be able to have a hard copy of my created card in my hand

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

only suggestion i have is maybe setting up somehow the ability to have our cards available to be mailed to us (as in the card be mailed to its creator)? even if it means costing a dollar or two. i dont even care if it can be tournament legal i just want to be able to have a hard copy of my created card in my hand

 

We are not affiliated with Konami or any of its partners, so getting your card printed is a no-go. There are OriCa sites where you can get your stuff printed, but it is VERY expensive to do so. That being said, the cardmaker is still broken right now and our administrator isn't here to fix it (I think I mentioned this in the "Do not request" this thread at the top of the forum). Even if you got your wish, the card would come out in bad quality.

[Blake]

Might I ask for some details regarding Yui's promotion?

 

This seems very sudden, which these twin threads could have been used to subvert.

 

Yeah, Dad's stepping down, but I never thought that meant he was being replaced. General runs itself with mod intervention as needed, and Debates is beyond dead, so it doesn't seem like anyone's really needed to fill the slot.

 

I'd just like to hear some reasoning or get a statement on it other than "and now he's here". If I missed that in the three posts adressing it, I apologize.

[Dad]

It was an internal suggestion, started by myself.  We all agreed that General was very, very light right now.  It doesn't need much moderation, but it shouldn't be left empty either.  Yui's name was mentioned previously back when the election was a mess, but due to unforseen circumstances, his name was dropped.  What with my stepping down now, I thought this was the perfect time to revisit our selections, and Yui came to mind.  Thus, his current trial period, over General.

[Blake]

That doesn't really tell us anything, though.

 

Regardless of the reasons that Yui's shortcomings were brought up in the first place, the election and events thereafter confirmed that they existed. He wasn't turned down due to one member's testimony, but due to mixed circumstances, which did happen to include his own bowing out. But... he was already considered a no-go before he even bowed out.

 

Why were his shortcomings overlooked? Why were they valued differently this time around?

 

I was Yui's biggest advocate in the first place, but I don't see anything that changed, instead my fears in regards to Yui in a moderating position have only been given credence over time.

 

That statement does nothing to assuage these.

[Dad]

That doesn't really tell us anything, though.

 

Regardless of the reasons that Yui's shortcomings were brought up in the first place, the election and events thereafter confirmed that they existed. He wasn't turned down due to one member's testimony, but due to mixed circumstances, which did happen to include his own bowing out. But... he was already considered a no-go before he even bowed out.

 

Why were his shortcomings overlooked? Why were they valued differently this time around?

 

I was Yui's biggest advocate in the first place, but I don't see anything that changed, instead my fears in regards to Yui in a moderating position have only been given credence over time.

 

That statement does nothing to assuage these.

 

Let me clear a few things up.

 

One, Yui didn't just bow out.  He was thrown under the bus.  There was a dirty campaign against his becoming a mod.  And shortly after he found out about it, he politely bowed out because he felt he wasn't wanted.  That's why his name was withdrawn.

 

Two, his shortcomings weren't overlooked.  The fact that his weaknesses are far less of a detriment than some of the other options we were left with, was a good thing.  I think the most glaring thing was how he has a temper like myself.  But that's exactly why we're in a trial period for his time as a Junior Moderator.  The team needs to know how he adapts or if he can adapt and change to be fit.

[Blake]

Let me clear a few things up.

 

One, Yui didn't just bow out.  He was thrown under the bus.  There was a dirty campaign against his becoming a mod.  And shortly after he found out about it, he politely bowed out because he felt he wasn't wanted.  That's why his name was withdrawn.

 

Two, his shortcomings weren't overlooked.  The fact that his weaknesses are far less of a detriment than some of the other options we were left with, was a good thing.  I think the most glaring thing was how he has a temper like myself.  But that's exactly why we're in a trial period for his time as a Junior Moderator.  The team needs to know how he adapts or if he can adapt and change to be fit.

I know better than anyone the context of the first one. He didn't find out he was "thrown under the bus". He bowed out after someone went to him with the concerns. You can decide whether or not that's coercion, but it was NOT after it came out that he was privately criticized. He was unaware at the time that news came out.

 

I also have a hard time that his shortcomings were overlooked when a member who had most of those shortcomings and has shown far more growth in those areas regularly posts on the site/runs events wasn't. Sure, that member was scratched off the list in the past, but it doesn't make sense to not consider them (maybe you did, but I feel like they would have been chosen were that the case) than someone who doesn't frequent general. plus seems to have those issues unresolved. A trial period shouldn't be "don't funk it up and you get the job", it should be trying to see what they add to the team/making sure their temperament is in the place you expected it to be. Anyone can do the former.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It was me who talked to him before he dropped out, and I maintain I wasn't dirty.

 

He didn't think it was dirty either, until he was told it was.

 

I'm not a funking villain and I'm tired of being told I am.

[Dad]

I know better than anyone the context of the first one. He didn't find out he was "thrown under the bus". He bowed out after someone went to him with the concerns. You can decide whether or not that's coercion, but it was NOT after it came out that he was privately criticized. He was unaware at the time that news came out.

 

I also have a hard time that his shortcomings were overlooked when a member who had most of those shortcomings and has shown far more growth in those areas regularly posts on the site/runs events wasn't. Sure, that member was scratched off the list in the past, but it doesn't make sense to not consider them (maybe you did, but I feel like they would have been chosen were that the case) than someone who doesn't frequent general. plus seems to have those issues unresolved. A trial period shouldn't be "don't funk it up and you get the job", it should be trying to see what they add to the team/making sure their temperament is in the place you expected it to be. Anyone can do the former.

 

We considered a lot of members.  A lot.  I believe the number was six or more.  So it's not like we just picked Yui out of the previous mentions and neglected further evaluation.

 

As for your last line, how is that different from my previous statement?  We actually question candidates before promotion, so we know where Yui is now.  If he can adapt (or "have his temperament be where it needs to be) then he can keep the job.  This was the case for Zai and now it's the case for Yui.

 

This wasn't a willy-nilly pick.

[Blake]

We considered a lot of members.  A lot.  I believe the number was six or more.  So it's not like we just picked Yui out of the previous mentions and neglected further evaluation.

 

As for your last line, how is that different from my previous statement?  We actually question candidates before promotion, so we know where Yui is now.  If he can adapt (or "have his temperament be where it needs to be) then he can keep the job.  This was the case for Zai and now it's the case for Yui.

 

This wasn't a willy-nilly pick.

Your last statement makes it sound like "we'll see if he fucks up", but that's not good enough. You can say trial period and interview, but neither of those mean anything in the grand scheme, based on past promotions. 

 

And even if you did find that Yui was a risk worth taking, that other member, whose only "crime" is past behavior making them seem less than suited for the position, not here instead? That member has shown marked growth, and Yui has been... Yui. A fine member, but not someone I'm confident in as a choice.

 

I don't want to be or come across as antagonistic, but saying "it's not willy-nilly" doesn't make it seem otherwise, when we've still not been given any actual information as to why this happened.

 

If this wasn't spur of the moment, why wasn't this brought up in these threads? (Like I said, I assumed a stepping down and nothing else, as there was no reason to assume replacement.)

Why does a quiet section need a specific mod?

Why choose someone who has little-to-no investment in that section?

What merits does Yui bring to the team that others do not?

Does he have interest in the section, its improvement, or its growth?

What about his shortcomings?

Why do you now believe shortcomings that were enough to turn him down (pre-bowing out) aren't enough now?

What makes you confident in this choice?

Why should we have faith in a "Trial Period" that only serves as not burning the site down in the first month? Why is this not a measure of what they get done for the site during this time?

 

Just examples, not things that need to be answered bullet by bullet. The issue of a lack of explanation isn't changed because none of these questions have been answered, and this is coming from someone who has inside knowledge from his time on the team.

[Dad]

Your last statement makes it sound like "we'll see if he fucks up", but that's not good enough. You can say trial period and interview, but neither of those mean anything in the grand scheme, based on past promotions. 

 

And even if you did find that Yui was a risk worth taking, that other member, whose only "crime" is past behavior making them seem less than suited for the position, not here instead? That member has shown marked growth, and Yui has been... Yui. A fine member, but not someone I'm confident in as a choice.

 

I don't want to be or come across as antagonistic, but saying "it's not willy-nilly" doesn't make it seem otherwise, when we've still not been given any actual information as to why this happened.

 

If this wasn't spur of the moment, why wasn't this brought up in these threads? (Like I said, I assumed a stepping down and nothing else, as there was no reason to assume replacement.)

Why does a quiet section need a specific mod?

Why choose someone who has little-to-no investment in that section?

What merits does Yui bring to the team that others do not?

Does he have interest in the section, its improvement, or its growth?

What about his shortcomings?

Why do you now believe shortcomings that were enough to turn him down (pre-bowing out) aren't enough now?

What makes you confident in this choice?

Why should we have faith in a "Trial Period" that only serves as not burning the site down in the first month? Why is this not a measure of what they get done for the site during this time?

 

Just examples, not things that need to be answered bullet by bullet. The issue of a lack of explanation isn't changed because none of these questions have been answered, and this is coming from someone who has inside knowledge from his time on the team.

 

If you had actually asked these questions, I could've given answers sooner.  You gave me a general, unrefined question.  I gave you a basic answer.  I can go through this point by point.  I don't have a problem with that.  And the decision was made because no matter who we picked, YCM was not going to be happy with that selection.  So let's just get this out of the way before I'm demoted.

 

 

If this wasn't spur of the moment, why wasn't this brought up in these threads? (Like I said, I assumed a stepping down and nothing else, as there was no reason to assume replacement.)

 

See my above statement.  This was a lengthy process.  It began mid to early May and didn't come to a conclusion until early last week.  Roughly three to four weeks.  We discussed the decision internally based on previous members, previous criteria, and who was and wasn't suitable for the position.  I'm not going to name drop publicly or privately.

 

 

Why does a quiet section need a specific mod?

 

Someone had to take my place.  General is only quiet because no one is willing to take up the reigns and start a conversation.  Just because it's quiet doesn't mean we should forsake it and let it run itself.  Polls is all but self managing.  But I still poke my head in there regularly.  Activity does not equate to moderation.

 

 

Why choose someone who has little-to-no investment in that section?

 

Something we considered.  That being said, its something we considered with all of the candidates chosen.  Yui's lack of investment is both good and bad.  Because he doesn't stick his head in General's front page too much, it's easier for him to be impartial.  That can be said about members who are highly invested in General as well.  To compare Yui, one of my recommended candidates had a lot of investment but was poor at managing conflict.  Yui is in Misc. more often than not.  He interacts regularly with a lot of General's regular members.  He has a lot of exposure to them, both playfully and seriously. 

 

Yui is a lot like myself in that regard.  I was in Debates a lot before I was selected to be General Mod.  I had to change my attitude quickly, not to mention adjust my approaches.  I had exposure to Debates and RP.  That was it.  Look at what I was able to do (with generous help).

 

 

What merits does Yui bring to the team that others do not?

 

Among our candidates, Yui brings the following:

 

• He's more personable
• He's equally or more active
• He's less antagonistic
• He's trustworthy

 

Does he have interest in the section, its improvement, or its growth?

 

Yes.  I can vouch for that much.  Our interview with him went smoothly, and I can say with confidence he has interest in the section, its improvement, and its growth.  In fact, he's been questioning me for days -_-.

 

 

What about his shortcomings?

 

He's angry.  Quick to react.  Like I was.  Before I became a Mod.  Two days in and I was already slowing myself down because I valued the job.  Personally, I believe he cares about the job.  Otherwise he wouldn't be going through the trouble of gathering information about the section, asking for help, and digging his heels in to figure out where to begin, and where to go forwards.

 

 

Why do you now believe shortcomings that were enough to turn him down (pre-bowing out) aren't enough now?

 

Because a lot changed over the year (approaching year?) that I've been a moderator and Yui was considered shortly thereafter.  His temperament is our biggest concern.  It was the mod team's concern of mine; how absurdly angry I could get.  I improved by leaps and bounds in my own opinion, and from what I gather, the opinion of others.  And I know if the team and the board could accept me--this is me we're talking about--then they can accept Yui.  Yui can be professional.  I've observed it.  His engagements have drastically changed in that time, and it was an important factor.

 

 

What makes you confident in this choice?

 

Me?  Personally?  I trust Yui.  I strongly believe he can do this.  I also believe that, when Winter returns, he'll still be able to handle it.

 

 

Why should we have faith in a "Trial Period" that only serves as not burning the site down in the first month? Why is this not a measure of what they get done for the site during this time?

 

Because you gave me the same opportunity.  If the challenge was to see how much they could get done in a month, we'd promote them to full moderators right away.  How do they answer reports?  Do they consult the team before making major decisions (bans, heavy point warnings).  Can they handle an influx of Admin Panel related requests (name changes, title changes, marriage updates, created groups, and more)?  He is heavily restricted right now.  He can't even see reports.  If you wanna know if he can bring more discussion to General, that doesn't seem to be the best way to go about it.

 

I had an easier time because Debates was only just returning.  I was able to set the pace.  Yui is taking over from a pre-established setting.  Things are already so well controlled, that they have quieted down.  Or maybe you want him to create more site wide events?  I don't know.  I'm saying that it's harder for this trial period to be a measure of "what they get done for the site" than it is to see if they can actually fold into a moderating position.  If he can't even become a moderator, what do I care if he can do anything for the site?  He has to be able to handle this position of "power" before he can actually get in and start making changes.

 

Take all of this lightly.  About sixty percent of what you read above is coming from me (I'm an individual, but I'm speaking generally on what happened in the mod forums with the team, so there is unavoidable bias).  I'll be here for a little while longer to answer any questions I can.

[Yui]

Oh snap I didn't even remember this thread existed until just now. Guess I'd better get in here since I seem to be the topic of the day, so first thing's first.

 

He didn't think it was dirty either, until he was told it was.

I still don't think it was dirty. Like, people can say there were ulterior motives or whatever, but I could tell there was some genuine concern behind your statements regarding me during the PR election. Whether you had something else in mind as well or not is none of my business; you were worried I was getting in over my head, and I lowkey respect what you did in response. The only part of it I thought was dirty was when none of the people who voiced their concerns to the mods didn't bring it up with me as it happened and were planning to wait until after the election, but that was long ago and it's not like I can do anything about it, so even that's water under the bridge if anything.

 

Now then, onto the issue of do I deserve to be mod. Anyone that isn't a mod seems to be against it. I even asked the trusty magic 8-ball if I deserved the job as I started typing this and got "My reply is no". But then I asked if I should stick to it anyway and got "As I see it, yes" so make of that what you will I guess. As for more serious answers to things...

 

Or at least, the ones I have answers to...

 

Why choose someone who has little-to-no investment in that section?

As I understand, one of the benefits to this was that having little or no investment in the section - or the topics generally discussed therein - makes it easier for me to keep the members of General in line as a moderator has to, without letting personal opinions get in the way.

 

What about his shortcomings?

Unless I've misremembered, my greatest shortcoming as a potential moderator was temper issues. I like to think I'm a pretty chill guy most of the time, though I do have the occasional yuirant once a year or so. And honestly, one giant rant thread a year isn't too bad when you think about it. The major enabler for my temper - Winter - won't be back with us for a few more months, so I'll have time to learn more on how to work without letting emotions get in the way.

 

Why do you now believe shortcomings that were enough to turn him down (pre-bowing out) aren't enough now?

What makes you confident in this choice?

I'm not gonna say names, but I did see the list of candidates the mod team was considering. And they've all got some pretty hefty shortcomings if you ask me. From where I'm sitting, it seemed to be a case of "Yui's the safest option" or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Why should we have faith in a "Trial Period" that only serves as not burning the site down in the first month? Why is this not a measure of what they get done for the site during this time?

If I'm ever going to burn the site down, it'll take far less than a month; if I go that long without torching the place, it'll be fine ^_~

Also what Dad said. I can't really do anything right now.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Let me clear a few things up.

 

One, Yui didn't just bow out.  He was thrown under the bus.  There was a dirty campaign against his becoming a mod.  And shortly after he found out about it, he politely bowed out because he felt he wasn't wanted.  That's why his name was withdrawn.

Alright no I can't just let this fly.

 

Thrown under the bus? Are you kidding me?

Opinions were wanted and in some cases asked for.

One of the reasons given for why Zai was chosen was that he didn't get any people saying that they thought he shouldn't.

You can NOT say the above and later say "thrown under the bus". (I know you didn't specifically say the above but it was said by a few and it was publicly said)

 

Hell I only didn't tell him I said anything until after because I didn't at the moment want to say something that might hurt his feelings. And because I didn't want to ruin his motivation for the position (because if he got the position and had that in his head it might not go so well) so I left it to the mod's discretion what to do with the information.

 

Giving opinions why one thinks someone is a bad choice for a position of power is not a dirty campaign. It just makes sense. What would you have people do? Publicly shame him about it instead of PMing a mod? Telling him and maybe hurting his feelings (which if you are right about his response is exactly how that would have gone down since you say he felt inadequate upon hearing such things)? No, the only recourse is to PM the mods, the people who are supposed to be able to be talked to about this exact kind of concern, and let them decide based on the information they are given.

As Black already said the reasoning for his bowing out was not to do with the "dirty campaign."

 

I am not going to just have me, and a close friend, get literally slandered because of misinformation. Especially when it involves one of the people both I and said friend care about the most on the site.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I'm just gonna say here and now that Yui should be RP mod and Zai should be moved to general.

 

Then we can get some rules done in there, yea?