Winter's Ban

[Blake]

Phone, so going to be brief.

 

I wasn't baiting you. I was mad, wanted to make sure you saw it, but it was never bait. You can ask evilfusion. When I PMd him about you taking it what I felt was way too far, I explicitly asked him NOT to be a matter of you being a mod. I asked him to talk to you, person to person. I didn't tell him to scold or punish you. I just asked him to talk to you, man to man, because I would fail miserably.

 

I never got mad that Winter was to be punished. I was, in fact, lax with one of his warns and making sure it was fair. That was never what I handled.

 

I handled the fact that it was almost never legitimate. Pussy grabbing joke, legal precedent misinterpreted as promoting genocide, 

 

The thing about "grow a spine" is a skewed representation of the rule about minor name calling not being an issue, because that's the only time I said remotely similar. And that was just as much due to it happening back TO winter, despite it never being seen as wrong to do that way.

 

I tried to talk to Winter in private and give him heads up about things. His joke ban was also one he and I talked about, and he genuinely enjoyed it/that EVERYONE got a laugh. I think he's an alright guy to talk to 1-on-1.

 

But I never said he was blameless. I let the genocide warning go through, wrongly, because I was distracted with PR Mod stuff. I covered the mistake later on, because I was just as much to blame for it happening when I told dad "yeah, sure, whatever".

 

I wasn't defending him out of moral highground or political stance. I defended him because no one else, barring evilfusion, would. Because the team wanted to railroad him for jokes, misinterpretations, or far worse things that happened to him than he sent out. I don't think I'm a better person than you or him, but that's exactly it: we are all human. So I simply didn't want to see him railroaded because of vendettas or half-assed claims.

 

I didn't push for you to get demoted until a while after anything with Winter started. It was within the last month of modship. Early February. Even then, I backed off, until you once again overstepped, and I still didn't say demote you much at all later. Criticism is not a call for your head. Criticism is not hostility.

 

I have already said I believe this to be a case of "right thing, looks like wrong reasons". The case for wrong reasons is still strong, though I'm suitably convinced it was just a matter of poor timing. Very poor, mind, but all the same. I don't think any ill intent went into this ban, as of this time, but it could have been handled better.

 

So, no, I'm not upset Winter is banned. And this thread doesn't contain me defending him at all. Challenging the decision's handling, yes. Challenging the ban itself, no. Just the lack of transparency and seeming shadiness surrounding this ban. I'd already bowed out of this thread, even.

 

Hell, back to evilfusion, he knows I definitely have the ability to contest the ban based on this thread. But it's not about me wanting him here. It's about doing things the right way. I have misgivings here, but I don't believe there was any intent to be spiteful, at least not on the part of evilfusion, who did the actual ban. And he is the only one that matters at this time, if we are arguing the ban itself.

Addendum, I do intend to have a discussion about the ban with evilfusion, if he's willing to, but I think it's definitely for the better to not hash it out here.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

"On YCM, if you have a different opinion about someone, then you're wrong and you should feel bad" is the vibe I'm getting from this thread.

 

In regards to Winter as a person, I only talked to the guy maybe once. It was clear he was incredibly antagonistic, and I will admit I have been antagonistic back to him multiple times which has led me to getting in trouble. But the intent that he just kept piling it on and on afterward was incredibly unbecoming. I never really hung out in Debates all that much so I can't say for sure whether he is in the right or wrong in regards to those kinds of threads, but the way his intent coming off was incredibly rude. And I keep bringing up intent because you can be an jabroni on this site. No one really gives a crap. I know I'm an jabroni, and I've gotten into trouble over it in the past. But if you just keep piling it on and on, over and over again, like what Winter did repeatedly with his inflammatory posts, then that's when action has to be taken. It's not about who it is, but what they are doing. I could go into Debates and start sheet right now with "this person shouldn't exist", and I would immediately get punished for it. Would I feel bad about doing it? Yeah, probably. Winter as far as I know never owned up to any of his actions, which implies that he is truly set on being inflammatory and generally toxic and hateful.

 

In regards to the actual thread as a whole...well, nobody wins in this situation. Winter gets banned, the majority agree while those that actually tried to defend him continue defending him. Winter doesn't get banned, the majority disagree and claim it's the Moderator team's fault for not taking any action. But sometimes, as a Moderator, you have to be willing to make those decisions and to power through all the backlash you're going to get. Personally, this was handled in the best way possible, and the reactions created from the general public are livid enough to warrant attention. Making a giant post about it with the Moderator team saying "so and so was banned" would have drawn a lot of unnecessary hate and inflammation to the thread. Being discreet with the ban and not telling anyone, which should be the proper way to go, created a lot of disposition within the Moderator team and the general public saying "Yo, this isn't cool, why did you do this behind our backs?". If every perma-banned member got their own thread with as much controversy as this one did, there would be a lot of threads with the same message in them: "Our Moderator team didn't do the right thing, this is how it should have been handled."

 

It could have been handled differently, who knows. The public's reaction would have been different, but there would still be hostility towards them for banning a member behind closed curtains. But even then, you still can't win. There's no real winner in this situation. Which is sad because if Winter had actually changed his behavior this probably would have never happened and we can all get on with our lives.

[BANZAI!!!!]

I think everything that needs to be said has been said. Looks like we're done here.

 

I'm not going to lock this thread, but if another staff member wants to they can.

[Aerion Brightflame]

So does anyone on the mod team want to make a comment on what you intend to do to handle situations like this better in the future? Or are we just going to leave it hanging, and get nothing done from it?

 

Because, we (Well some of us) have highlighted issues in how this was handled, namely the secrecy, thelack of suitable PR to the ban, and the apparent disregard for your own newly established procedure for dealing with members. Does the mod team wish to have a single, unified (Or close to unified) response to these concerns and a direction as to how you intend to do better?

 

Or is it the case you don't think it was mishandled?

 

Because if we are apparently 'Done here' I'd love to have an official statement from the mod team finalising things.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Personally, this was handled in the best way possible, and the reactions created from the general public are livid enough to warrant attention.

If you think this is the best way possible, you are delusional, if you'll pardon my straightforwardness.

 

It has been outlined what was wrong, and even the mod team has admitted that it wasn't handled correctly.

 

That's the most bothersome thing in this thread, at least for me. Several times, including a pretty lengthy post from myself, members have said "doing so x way would have worked out a lot better" then are met with "Sorry not sorry but it's clear nothing would satisfy you" as if people have their fingers in their ears screaming la la la. I try pretty damn hard to remain as calm and rational as I can, but that sheet gets to me. And thing is, it isn't just with this whole matter of winter being banned. Time and time again, rather than discuss the team's shortcomings and blunders (a massively important part of improving and preventing future problems) we either get "well, that's the way it is, no way to fix it" or "your concern is fake news/unimportant/overstated"

 

People aren't mad because winter is banned. Well, some are, but I digress. And no, people aren't so much even mad at not being told anything because "loltransparency". People are mad because, over the last few months, working with the mod team has had a huge sense of futility. Even after sheet blows up like this, with some very real and reasonable points being brought up among the chaos, there is very little to reassure that the mod team will do anything afterward beyond wiping sweat from their brow. It has been stated by black, Birdie, night, and even irrelevant fucks like me that the point of PR isn't to tell the forum what the mods are doing. If it actually matters, it's easy enough to notice otherwise, and for stuff that isn't so obvious it isn't significant to warrant a person in a position dedicated to it.

 

The point of PR (not just as a specific position, but as an aspect of modship for the whole team) is to be connected with the member base. To reassure people that their opinion matters. To allow people without mod cp to make positive changes to the forum and community. That is why, when a position was made for it, presence in the community and openness of mind were so important to consider.

 

Concerns like these often get swept under the rug. Not because there is some kind of conspiracy to cover up dissent, nothing like that at all. As a matter of fact, it can be considered quite the opposite. The reason desire for change and improvement seem to go unnoticed really just boils down to laziness. This isn't an attack, simply an observation. Honestly, it's totally understandable. This is a forum for a card game that a significant portion of the member base doesn't even play. It's easy to say "it doesn't matter, and people who are stirring up trouble just do it because they have nothing exciting in life". It is easy to be complacent with half-assed modship. But frankly, that's never been something I could get behind, even somewhere as seemingly trivial as this. Good enough should never be good enough. Just because this stuff doesn't matter too much to some members, or the vast majority of members even, does not make the concerns of those who do want to push the forum toward being better than it currently is any less valid.

 

When a thread goes through six pages of discussion, to have someone say "basically nothing is wrong and people who criticized the team should be under review," immediately followed by a quick "weulp looks like that's that, seems we solved the issues in here" from a moderator who has already had countless concerns brought up about their performance...

 

Even more so than the issue of locking shard's thread seeming to prove their point, what seems to be the ending point here points toward what people have been trying to bring up for months.

[BANZAI!!!!]

If you think this is the best way possible, you are delusional, if you'll pardon my straightforwardness.

It has been outlined what was wrong, and even the mod team has admitted that it wasn't handled correctly.

That's the most bothersome thing in this thread, at least for me. Several times, including a pretty lengthy post from myself, members have said "doing so x way would have worked out a lot better" then are met with "Sorry not sorry but it's clear nothing would satisfy you" as if people have their fingers in their ears screaming la la la. I try pretty damn hard to remain as calm and rational as I can, but that sheet gets to me. And thing is, it isn't just with this whole matter of winter being banned. Time and time again, rather than discuss the team's shortcomings and blunders (a massively important part of improving and preventing future problems) we either get "well, that's the way it is, no way to fix it" or "your concern is fake news/unimportant/overstated"

People aren't mad because winter is banned. Well, some are, but I digress. And no, people aren't so much even mad at not being told anything because "loltransparency". People are mad because, over the last few months, working with the mod team has had a huge sense of futility. Even after sheet blows up like this, with some very real and reasonable points being brought up among the chaos, there is very little to reassure that the mod team will do anything afterward beyond wiping sweat from their brow. It has been stated by black, Birdie, night, and even irrelevant fucks like me that the point of PR isn't to tell the forum what the mods are doing. If it actually matters, it's easy enough to notice otherwise, and for stuff that isn't so obvious it isn't significant to warrant a person in a position dedicated to it.

The point of PR (not just as a specific position, but as an aspect of modship for the whole team) is to be connected with the member base. To reassure people that their opinion matters. To allow people without mod cp to make positive changes to the forum and community. That is why, when a position was made for it, presence in the community and openness of mind were so important to consider.

Concerns like these often get swept under the rug. Not because there is some kind of conspiracy to cover up dissent, nothing like that at all. As a matter of fact, it can be considered quite the opposite. The reason desire for change and improvement seem to go unnoticed really just boils down to laziness. This isn't an attack, simply an observation. Honestly, it's totally understandable. This is a forum for a card game that a significant portion of the member base doesn't even play. It's easy to say "it doesn't matter, and people who are stirring up trouble just do it because they have nothing exciting in life". It is easy to be complacent with half-assed modship. But frankly, that's never been something I could get behind, even somewhere as seemingly trivial as this. Good enough should never be good enough. Just because this stuff doesn't matter too much to some members, or the vast majority of members even, does not make the concerns of those who do want to push the forum toward being better than it currently is any less valid.

When a thread goes through six pages of discussion, to have someone say "basically nothing is wrong and people who criticized the team should be under review," immediately followed by a quick "weulp looks like that's that, seems we solved the issues in here" from a moderator who has already had countless concerns brought up about their performance...

Even more so than the issue of locking shard's thread seeming to prove their point, what seems to be the ending point here points toward what people have been trying to bring up for months.

Saying "what needs to be said has been said" doesn't mean "what has been said doesn't matter". We're evaluating.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I think everything that needs to be said has been said. Looks like we're done here.

 

I'm not going to lock this thread, but if another staff member wants to they can.

Don't. I have things that I need to say on the matter and don't want to type them up on my phone at work.

[Flame Dragon]

So does anyone on the mod team want to make a comment on what you intend to do to handle situations like this better in the future? Or are we just going to leave it hanging, and get nothing done from it?

 

Because, we (Well some of us) have highlighted issues in how this was handled, namely the secrecy, thelack of suitable PR to the ban, and the apparent disregard for your own newly established procedure for dealing with members. Does the mod team wish to have a single, unified (Or close to unified) response to these concerns and a direction as to how you intend to do better?

 

Or is it the case you don't think it was mishandled?

 

Because if we are apparently 'Done here' I'd love to have an official statement from the mod team finalising things.

We will be making a more final statement on this matter in the near future. It is coming.

[vla1ne]

"On YCM, if you have a different opinion about someone, then you're wrong and you should feel bad" is the vibe I'm getting from this thread.

 

In regards to Winter as a person, I only talked to the guy maybe once. It was clear he was incredibly antagonistic, and I will admit I have been antagonistic back to him multiple times which has led me to getting in trouble. But the intent that he just kept piling it on and on afterward was incredibly unbecoming. I never really hung out in Debates all that much so I can't say for sure whether he is in the right or wrong in regards to those kinds of threads, but the way his intent coming off was incredibly rude. And I keep bringing up intent because you can be an a****** on this site. No one really gives a crap. I know I'm an a******, and I've gotten into trouble over it in the past. But if you just keep piling it on and on, over and over again, like what Winter did repeatedly with his inflammatory posts, then that's when action has to be taken. It's not about who it is, but what they are doing. I could go into Debates and start s*** right now with "this person shouldn't exist", and I would immediately get punished for it. Would I feel bad about doing it? Yeah, probably. Winter as far as I know never owned up to any of his actions, which implies that he is truly set on being inflammatory and generally toxic and hateful.

 

It could have been handled differently, who knows. The public's reaction would have been different, but there would still be hostility towards them for banning a member behind closed curtains. But even then, you still can't win. There's no real winner in this situation. Which is sad because if Winter had actually changed his behavior this probably would have never happened and we can all get on with our lives.

That same intent was often directed at him as well, and it was more often than not overlooked because "it's winter" at least until somebody else pointed out said discrepancy. yeah, he was antagonistic, that didn't mean you couldn't hold a conversation with him, it just meant he wasn't going to put his words under much of a filter, and being aware of that in and of itself made discussions far easier to handle. to take the words of my prior post; not to say he never uses personal insults, or was never antagonistic, but much of the time, it's less "directed at the person" than it is "the person taking it personally." sure his words could be antagonistic, but so were many of those who shot back at him, and they took far more actions to antagonize him than simple words, hell, there were even new "reasonable" rules put in place that were unquestionably directed towards winter (in this instance, i use "" because said rules were indeed reasonable, but the aim of said rules, was clearly directed towards winter). [spoiler=in fact, to sample one of the discussions i had with winter when he saw as much]

 

 

 

 

Guys https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/360683-rule-review-and-implementation-flooding/page-1

 

We have to defeat the whar ammendment

 

Vote. No

 

 

 

nah, i'm voting i don't care. it's insanely easy to break past something like this if any of us needed to, and wasting energy fighting something this simple would do none of us any favors in the long run. it's a pretty basic amendment, and while it's clearly made to slow topic creation, it'll be far more fun to post every hour on the hour and piss people off that way. punctuality is a powerful weapon in and of itself.

 

 

 in other words, i helped him learn the best ways to act within the rules and fire back at people who wanted to throw him in the fire. the people he dealt with were just as aggressive as he was, they just used different tactics, [spoiler='and whether or not you believe me is irrelevant, because some of those same people were right there calling for his head when he beat them at their own game:]

 

 

 

 

if he's getting in trouble for aggression, then i've got a treasure trove of these and other discussions from debates and discord highlighting how much s*** was thrown at him as well. he wasn't the only one pulling s***, he was just the easiest to see.

 

 

 

he came across as antagonistic because he simply was, that didn't mean you couldn't talk with him, that didn't mean you couldn't get him to admit he was wrong, and that didn't mean he wasn't a good person even beyond all of that, hell it wasn't even hard to find any good in the dude once i took a second to study him. many people, as many as wanted him banned, would tell you he was an alright guy heated discussions notwithstanding. he has also owned up to multiple actions, and improved on multiple others, i know because i have made him do so during my discussions with him, and have been present in areas in the forum where others have done the same. yes, it takes some different approaches, but it's neither impossible, nor all that difficult, s***, i could write a pamphlet now and hand it out to any members if you were really having that much trouble holding a polite discussion with him. and contrary to popular belief, it wouldn't be "kiss his ass". order now and you'll receive a side pamphlet on vla1nes tips to building better batterymen.

some of the people here target winter with just as much aggression as he sends out albeit more passive than his own form, the sheer number of reports, both frivolous and actually true being a testament to this. he's been slammed with stupid claims, time and again, because of this whole "it builds up" mantra, which makes no sense to me, because were winter to report others on s*** they've said and done as often as they seem to report him, he'd be crucified for "false claims" and misguided aggression even more than he currently is. and yes, i've seen more than a few of said reports, and rather one sided tactics, from various screencaps, and my own currently rather lurky presence in debates and general. hell, some of said tactics were even used on me when i stepped in to winters defense in a thread or two. such as thread locking to get the last word, avoiding debates so that your opponent can't call you on your s*** as well as they would be able to otherwise, "I'm offended" being used as an actual argument, crying "racist" instead of debunking facts. ect. not everybody did as much, but it was a noticeable amount, and it was just as dumb as winters occasional chewbacca defenses, but was punished far less often because "taking offense" is apparently less stupid of an argument than being on the wrong topic when in debates, when both are equally irrelevant.

 

everything, from the timing to the overall justification and rules used, are suspicious at best, and simply wrong at worst, and i've said as much before here, as others can attest to [spoiler=posting just one of the many things i said in relation to warnings building up as a point]

*To winter, about an event where he got slammed with multiple past points over a single event*

If the reports were so petty that they couldn't be acted upon when they came up, then why the hell would the mods then say that they accumulated into something serious? if they were worth acting on, then act on them. the backlash be damned. if they weren't worth acting on, then just drop it. I've seen people call you all kinds of names, talk rudely about you in status and thread alike, but you never hear of them getting warnings, you never seen them chided, or anything else. so why then, are you getting so many reports? hell, cowcow was the one who started the whole damn thing in my thread, because he read himself into your post, and took offense. dad handled it rationally, and then kept it moving, but the other members can't be expected to keep themselves at such a standard?

 

What happened to addressing the problem as it stands? reporting is clearly just being used to snowball issues these days, and acting like the event has been keeping them all back is ignorant when you think about the number of mods we have, in relation to event's overall size. it might span the forum, but no more than 2-3 mods should be so busy with the event that it backs them up this heavily, and even for those mods, they could have asked another mod to handle it. slamming with warnings is not only suspicious in this case, it's literally railroading. abrasiveness can be ignored the moment you click the ignore button.(unless i've ben mistaken about it's function this whole time)

 

 

 

 

I am requesting said ban be rescinded until it can be done on proper grounds, because the end result was brought about not only by winter, but by an incredibly janky series of steps, from the poll, to the thread, to the timing. yeah, he calls out the mods, step to him proper then and address the issue, especially considering his conduct was actually within bounds at that point. Instead of polling on a site where most of the people who know him don't even exist, how about asking people who know more about him than the people who only want him gone because they are his polar opposites. and i don't even mean me,  i mean people like beatrice, black, brightflame, jessie, polaris, hyde, deadpool, ect. there's quite a few on all sides. i'm only contesting his ban because i have seen nothing that i can't put down properly with ample evidence. he has done nothing worthy of a ban that i couldn't extend responsibility for to others on this site to some major degree or another, including myself. and building up points from irrelevant reports, and insignificant events (and even events that he has already been warned for has done his time for) are simply stupid as far as reasons go.

[bury the year]

Okay, so something's been bothering me with the discourse in this thread, and I think I've finally put my finger on what it is.

 

...not to say he never uses personal insults, or was never antagonistic, but much of the time, it's less "directed at the person" than it is "the person taking it personally."

As I remember, this has come up in a few other posts in this thread re: Winter (not gonna dig through seven pages - too late at night for that). You can't excuse this sort of behavior by saying "people are just taking it too personally." Like it or not, such antagonistic and combative behavior shouldn't be deflected by "blaming the victim," such as it stands. If this means that more people on YCM need to be warned/punished for similar behavior, go ahead. I welcome it. It'll teach some among us to be more respectful and kind to others. The fact of the matter is, though, that Winter has gathered the most frequent complaints as to his behavior by other members, and letting that sit idle because people "are being too sensitive" is pretty shitty to do, ngl. With the volume of the tide that was cresting, a ban was appropriate.

 

While I agree that in hindsight the mechanics of how this process played out were flawed (namely the active sourcing of member opinions being a Bad Idea), I refer back to Arin's most recent post. Winter had shown a complete unwillingness to change his behavior, and that is at the root of the problem. As I recall, Ragnarok1945 was banned for similar reasons: he was let back onto the forum, didn't show signs of reforming on the patterns that caused the first ban, so more drastic action was taken. Reversing the ban won't actually solve the underling incentive problems that remain at the heart of this issue.

 

In summation, the process for instituting the ban was mishandled and should be revised for the future - or at least be more directly communicated. However, for reasons previously outlined, I see no reason to revoke it.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Hahaha oh boy let's do this s***

 

Alright, it's no secret. Winter and I don't often see eye to eye. Quite the opposite, in fact! I've spent pages upon pages arguing with him, mostly to no avail, and we've gotten pretty heated. I've thrown extremely esoteric insults at him (calling him a troglodyte for instance, and I think I called him a philistine once too), some of which have flown under the radar, some I got warned for, none of which I regret. I've gotten ridiculously, excessively annoyed at him and really did want him to just shut the f*** up and never speak again sometimes. That being said...

 

I am entirely against his ban.

 

Shocker, right? Probably not, because there's no way I'd be insistent on making a post unless it was something surprising and subversive!!!! Regardless, I'm getting off topic. As said, I disagree with his ban entirely for multiple reasons, think it should never have happened, and think it should be undone.

 

I might be treading some old ground here, but I don't really care. I take issue with calling him "toxic" in particular, because... it's incredibly vague. It's been explained what it means in this thread, sure, but in the end, it seems to just amount to, as I said, someone being aggressively wrong and aggressively annoying about it. I think that's a really bad reason to ban someone. It really does reinforce the idea that we're hostile to outsiders and I think this "toxicity" does more good than bad because we're really just a giant echo chamber without it. Not only that, but the word "toxic" is just a League-of-Legends-Community-esque buzzword and lost all meaning long ago; I thought we were better than that.

 

Mind, some of his words are legitimately harmful. The vitriol with which he describes his view on most trans-related issues would be legitimately dangerous to someone in a more vulnerable spot than someone like me, and he generally refuses to be educated on said issues (I've compiled like 30 links disproving his view and he didn't budge an inch). It's not just a case of having to grow thicker skin (like we as a community do, frankly), and him refusing to stop commenting on issues like that would be grounds for a ban. I do think he's gotten better about that, which is part of the reason I don't think he should be banned.

 

Maybe my perspective would be different if I've paid attention these past few years, but I didn't, so maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm missing the thing that'll tie it all together. But from what I've gathered in this thread...

 

In the end, I'm not arguing that he didn't break the rules. I'm instead arguing the rules that led to this ban, if there are any, are really f***ing stupid and should be changed even if nobody else gets banned because of them.

 

The more pressing issue is the circumstances surrounding it. I'm not going to go on about the timing because I don't have anything new to add to this conversation so I won't. Instead I'll focus on another factor that seems overlooked: This decision reeks of one made for the sake of appeasement. Like... "nobody likes our new mod, so let's ban this other guy nobody likes to score some easy points!" kind of appeasement. Mind, I don't think this is the case for a few reasons- I don't think the mod team is cohesive enough to do that, for one- but it still left that kind of taste in my mouth given the aforementioned horrible timing. That's... really bad. My confidence in the mod team has been shot partly because of this and it deserves to be the PR disaster that it turned into.

 

The worst part really has been the mod team's response. Not even because of the lack of transparency, but because of how utterly incoherent some of the responses are. I know the mod team feels the need to appear to be united in order to actually be able to keep the players in line (which is wrong for reasons I could go into another time), but some of the responses feel so scripted and out of character that I'm having trouble believing the decision is nearly as unanimous as you all are trying to sell it. It seems like, behind the scenes, the mod team is at each other's necks as viciously as two newlywed vampires. But that's none of my business I guess.

 

Either way, that's my 2cents. I might be missing a detail or two but from what I've gathered this is all really dumb and should probably not have happened.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Two echoes are not much better than one; even if that summary of the situation were true. And I highly doubt a single member being gone means that there won't be opposing view points.

 

I think the only reason it seems scripted is because they're trying to explain what they think in a way that cannot be taken out of context and used against them (because we've already had some cases of wording being called out and having to be explained as not meaning what it seemed like because of various personal ways of writing)

 

"It really does reinforce the idea that we're hostile to outsiders"

This makes no sense to me. An outsider wouldn't really care that some guy got banned. Hell from what I've heard many people here agree that many forums they've been to are a lot more hostile with their bans. I can't for one second believe that this ban would cause anyone to think "Wow what a hostile place".

Responses to the ban (from both ends) perhaps. But the ban itself? Nah.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

In the end, I'm not arguing that he didn't break the rules. I'm instead arguing the rules that led to this ban, if there are any, are really f***ing stupid and should be changed even if nobody else gets banned because of them.

This stood out to me.

 

It is important to remember that this ban was done in spite of recent rules (I.e. the temp ban stuff, which existed for this sort of behavior). It was brought up fairly early on, and (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) the only staff response to the point was from evilfusion. He actually said that it was a good point against him. His reasoning for the ban in spite of them? He decided to ignore them.

 

Now, whether or not the protocol in place for temporary bans would have worked with winter, it is important to keep in mind that this ban did not happen the way the rules outline. Obviously, the rules are to be interpreted with at least some level of moderator discretion, so as to avoid members avoiding punishment through loopholes, but that isn't really what happened here. Whether or not the staff has this much leeway in exercising the rules is an issue that should be kept in mind going forward.

 

And, as a last note, I would like to put to bed the bit about winter not improving. He absolutely has. Over the last few weeks, he has been on better behavior then almost ever, and if one actually pays attention, it is clear to see he has been consistently improving over the last year or so. As a matter of fact, yesterday on discord Zai was saying how winter never improved. I pointed out he did, and literally seconds later Zai acknowledged that I was right and that saying winter refused to improve was incorrect. Would other mods realize the flaw in the logic after thinking about it for mere seconds, or is Zai simply easily swayed?

 

[spoiler=screenshot I spent forever scrolling to find]

 

[Asriel Dreemurr]

This stood out to me.

 

It is important to remember that this ban was done in spite of recent rules (I.e. the temp ban stuff, which existed for this sort of behavior). It was brought up fairly early on, and (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) the only staff response to the point was from evilfusion. He actually said that it was a good point against him. His reasoning for the ban in spite of them? He decided to ignore them.

 

Now, whether or not the protocol in place for temporary bans would have worked with winter, it is important to keep in mind that this ban did not happen the way the rules outline. Obviously, the rules are to be interpreted with at least some level of moderator discretion, so as to avoid members avoiding punishment through loopholes, but that isn't really what happened here. Whether or not the staff has this much leeway in exercising the rules is an issue that should be kept in mind going forward.

 

And, as a last note, I would like to put to bed the bit about winter not improving. He absolutely has. Over the last few weeks, he has been on better behavior then almost ever, and if one actually pays attention, it is clear to see he has been consistently improving over the last year or so. As a matter of fact, yesterday on discord Zai was saying how winter never improved. I pointed out he did, and literally seconds later Zai acknowledged that I was right and that saying winter refused to improve was incorrect. Would other mods realize the flaw in the logic after thinking about it for mere seconds, or is Zai simply easily swayed?

 

[spoiler=screenshot I spent forever scrolling to find]

 

As someone who has had to beat his head against a wall to try and get Zai to change things in an RP that I am co-hosting with him, Zai is not easily swayed.

[Tourmaline]

As someone who has had to beat his head against a wall to try and get Zai to change things in an RP that I am co-hosting with him, Zai is not easily swayed.

Why would a beast betray its tamer?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

As someone who has had to beat his head against a wall to try and get Zai to change things in an RP that I am co-hosting with him, Zai is not easily swayed.

I'm not sure what Beatrice is getting at, but this response concerns me. The intent is clearly to defend Zai, but in doing so it implies that:

1.) Zai is not open to input from others. I have observed this, but not in such a capacity.

2.) Whatever would be able to change his mind so quickly would have to be correct.

[VCR_CAT]

I'm not sure what Beatrice is getting at, but this response concerns me. The intent is clearly to defend Zai, but in doing so it implies that:

1.) Zai is not open to input from others. I have observed this, but not in such a capacity.

2.) Whatever would be able to change his mind so quickly would have to be correct.

 

Really? I mean how blatantly obvious of an attempt at "character assassination" (as Black would put it) can you get?

 

So what you're implying is that you're:

1.) going to somehow extrapolate that how someone handles creative projects absolutely applies to any and all situations they work in

2.) not take the time get to know take a second to figure out if 1.) would actually be true

3.) just assume that people absolutely work this way and it's that simple.

 

Do you actually have a point to make on what should be done and what the best way to handle it is, or are you just trying to throw people under the bus at this point?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Keto seemed to think it applied, I was just running under that assumption for the sake of discussion. After all, he knows Zai way better than I do.

[VCR_CAT]

Keto seemed to think it applied, I was just running under that assumption for the sake of discussion. After all, he knows Zai way better than I do.

 

I know you're smarter than to just jump on whatever without thinking for yourself first.

[ENMaker]

"He didn't improve and this wasn't enough of a problem until we decided that it was and so he is permanently banned c:". I was under the impression that Giga's (I think it was him anyway) suggested warning point system, within which it would be necessary to break an actual rule to get banned rather than simply testing the patience of the mods, was to be implemented but apparently it's just been swept away. To my understanding Winter had 3 warning points pre-ban, and I have still yet to see a mod actually say what listed rule he broke to incur whatever number of points it takes for a perma.

 

I have read the rules in full to make sure, and found no mention of "being toxic" or "not improving" as expressly disallowed. If we're just banning people because we dislike them then make it a rule that to remain a member you have to be a lovable lad or lass, otherwise it's a completely arbitrary way to justify punishments.

 

You may or may not recall that during the "era" when we would let things pile up and then slam him all at once, I was the one who stepped in and said "No, you can't do it like that. The misbehavior that GOT the warn was so minor that it's ridiculous to get 10 warning points for it, just because of the 12 offenses that went unpunished preceding it this week"

Part of it does stem from his past behavior, which he was warned about multiple times, and his reactions towards members in Shard's thread when they told him to be civil in Debates and not resort to name-calling / the victim game in cases. There were other things such as flooding, necrobumping, early bumping, etc, but the majority of the reason for his punishment stems from how his influence negatively affected this site and even outside communities.

 

How is this not exactly what happened during what evil described as an "era" (which to me suggested it was no longer a thing)? He's banned because he has a negative influence? How is this measured? Do you have comparisons between sections he was active in and sections he was not, and a demonstrable difference in their environments?

 

That's an incredibly vague reason to remove someone permanently from the forum The effect he has on outside communities? Why does that matter? If, for example, I repeatedly made Pojo accounts to post racist tirades accompanied by child pornography in card discussion threads, driving users away with my persistence, would I be punished here for my negative effect on that community?

[evilfusion]

For the record, I will be the one to post an official "final statement", ideally later today.

 

I'm letting you all know this so you know what to expect, but also to let you know that your posts are not being ignored, even if there isn't any response from the team. I am reading all the points you guys are bringing up.

[Tourmaline]

Know that at the time of his last punishment, he was notified (or maybe not like certain other cases) that his punishment had been three (or less) warning points and not a permanent ban.

 

Know that judges can not modify their sentence after the fact without an appeal from the defendant (where no room to defend oneself was given).

 

Know as well that, with the status of the moderators already being weak, the capricious and arbitrary nature of your actions erode the integrity of your words as a group. Not only your words, but your punishments and the procedures in the official rules.

 

If his punishment for his last offense was a permanent ban, you have no place lying and telling him it was three warning points, and even less place defending the injurious principles that action precede.

 

Make your final statement acknowledging these actions you have committed, whether you believe them to be sinful or virtuous.

[Night]

I'm not sure what Beatrice is getting at, but this response concerns me. The intent is clearly to defend Zai, but in doing so it implies that:

1.) Zai is not open to input from others. I have observed this, but not in such a capacity.

2.) Whatever would be able to change his mind so quickly would have to be correct.

 

Yeah let's not do sheet like this please. You're getting into contrived hypothetical territory. 

To the point where if the same were to be done in response to this post one might come to the conclusion that there could be some personal bias.

 

Which, honestly, is a genuine problem with these threads. It started with a sole qualm and has since forked off into a plethora of them. Which pretty much happens every single time without fail. 

If you nitpick at a problem then more problems will arise, like scraping an open wound. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

My intent with the post was humoring a poor defense to demonstrate its lack of validity/the mindlessness with which some members defend zai (and other moderators, and even winter).

 

It was my mistake to appear to be taking it as seriously as I did.

[evilfusion]

All right, I guess it's about time to issue some sort of final statement regarding this matter.

 

[spoiler=Massive Wall of Text]

 

There have been a number of concerns raised about the overall handling of the ban, or the circumstances surrounding it. That's fine; I am usually open to hearing out an opposing argument in the hopes of reaching a mutual understanding, even if disagreement persists. That is the method by which I operate.

 

I have already said most of what needed to be said in other posts within this thread, but will reiterate the major points regardless, before addressing the concerns brought up.

 

Winter is a member with an uncomfortably extensive history of being overly antagonistic in his interactions with others. He has been the subject of debate among the moderation team for what has to be well over a year at this point. For the sake of fairness, let me emphasize - not EVERY conflict involving Winter has been instigated by him. Not every conflict has been severe enough to warrant punishment. Not every seemingly insulting remark or insensitive comment has carried malice.

 

Because of the frequency of these small-scale issues, many members of the mod team in the past got fed up with him constantly being antagonistic. Even if individual offenses at the time did not really warrant intervention, they toed the line. For a non-specific example, if a member calls someone an 'idiot' once during an argument, it's not really worth penalizing. But if that member is calling someone an idiot every time they make a post, they will eventually get slapped with a punishment for it. Not because 'idiot' is something terrible in itself, but because that member is conducting themselves PERSISTENTLY in a manner that is poor form. This is one of Winter's overreaching problems - individual examples are usually not severe. But he conducts himself this way constantly, to the point that it cannot be ignored forever.

 

Again, still in the past, these sort of situations would crop up. Winter would say something or do something that, on its own, is negligible, but do it persistently. This eventually led to some of the moderators starting to institute penalties for these repeated offenses in an effort to rein his behavior in. Unfortunately, this was often done in the worst manner possible, resulting in legitimately skewed punishments. The sum of its parts may have warranted 5 warning points for abusive behavior, but the action that "triggered" the warn was usually stupidly petty and laughable.

 

In those situations, Winter would often approach me to appeal the warnings and/or ask me to remove the bizarre mod queue penalty that kicked in when you reached 7 warn points, where you could post, but for 24-72 hours, unless a moderator manually "approved" those posts, they were invisible. More often than not, I usually agreed with Winter. The penalties were often ridiculous for the offense that triggered them, and sometimes just dropped on him like a sack of bricks. Dumber situations included two mods warning him in succession, not realizing that he was getting warned by the other.

 

The subject of whether to ban Winter was not unusual among the mod team. He was a persistent issue, but the way the team handled his (legitimate) offenses were overblown half the time, to the point where I had to reverse them, because it WAS excessive.

 

Why am I talking about this? Because it's important for you to understand that I was probably one of the only mods that actively took Winter's side more often than not. I agreed he needed punishment, but the methods and severity were so shaky that it was impossible to defend them. We went through multiple iterations of this. Mods that were on good terms with him spoke to him via PM, telling him what behaviors and attitude needed to be adjusted, because it was not acceptable. Mods were encouraged to communicate closely with one another to prevent huge warns being dropped on him randomly.

 

But the problem was, none of these approaches ever seemed to stick. Winter would sometimes say he was making an effort to change, and usually did for a few days or so. But then the behavior would resume, and the cycle continued.

 

Except now, Winter had a history of moderators dropping ridiculous punishments on him for innocuous offenses. This fueled his more recent tendency to cry foul whenever he received ANY punishment, including verbal warnings. It was always about how the mods have it in for him, and he's not the only one with an attitude, but those members aren't getting warned.

 

This got to the point where mods were reluctant to take ANY steps against him, because no matter how well-deserved the punishment was, it will always be turned back on them. And if the mods do nothing, Winter can use the lack of action to say that he didn't deserve the (next) punishment, because no one acted against him the week before for the same thing, so clearly it must be because the argument he got warned for is POLITICAL, and the mods just want to silence his political viewpoints because they're...from the opposing political viewpoint.

 

This is the type of stuff that's been going on for about a year. Whether he should get banned gets brought up every other month or so, and I usually disagree. Weirdly, the other mods have yet to accuse me of being biased towards Winter, or trying to subjugate them. My reasoning is usually that, while he does need to be penalized, he doesn't usually do anything DRASTICALLY terrible that would justify an immediate removal from the community, and while we probably could trigger temporary bans via "chip damage", just every few times he's acting poorly, drop a point or two on him, there probably would need to be a "warning cool down" timer because otherwise, we'd definitely get accused of rapid-fire warning him again.

 

So, assuming any of you are still reading this...

 

Q: What changed since his past behavior and the present, where he now deserves a permanent ban?

 

A: Nothing.

 

But that's the problem. It's been over a year of going through this dance. Nothing works on him. Talking doesn't get consistent or long-reaching results. Slaps on the wrist just argued against, and cries of how the team is biased against him almost definitely follows. Spelling it out what is wrong with his attitude and behavior gets ignored, or twisted to complain about other members. Nothing changes on his end. We're expected to change our approach to him, and that's not okay for the community as a whole. One member should not get that much leeway when his attitude and behavior is this persistently negative.

 

Nobody else starts drama or picks fights to the extent that Winter does, and few people protest to their mild punishments as loudly and incessantly as Winter does. Even when he has a point, and I can concede that sometimes, he has very valid points...it doesn't excuse HIS behavior.

 

Now, the actual event itself.

 

People are latching onto the notion that Winter may have gotten banned because he participated in a thread accusing the mod team of abusing their power, in the interest of silencing opposing political viewpoints. More reasonable people are noting that this probably wasn't the INTENTION, but admit that it looks bad.

 

...you're right. It looks bad.

 

But...it's also pretty unavoidable. For me, the thread has examples of the type of attitude Winter displays towards people he disagrees with, the type of "toxic" attitude that is the primary catalyst for most of the drama involving him. The thread also has people, trying to point out precisely what is wrong with his approach, attitude, and treatment of those he's in disagreement with. He all but tells them to funk off. I admire people who stick to their guns, but Winter's demeanor when sticking to said guns is poisonous and hostile, which is usually met in kind. If we punish him, we're "confirming" that we're trying to silence his views, rather than trying to get him to rein in his hostile demeanor and delivery. Passion is laudable. Venom is not. If we don't punish him, it will indirectly encourage that sort of behavior. It's a lose/lose situation.

 

But, it's precisely the attitude that is not healthy for the community as a whole. If action is to be taken on a larger scale, it must be done while the incident is still fresh. If we waited until say...next week, there's the possibility that any incidents sparked by him in that time will look tame in comparison. Then we look like we're just dying for any excuse to cull him, when we were "fine" with worse stuff last week. If we crack down on him, it reaffirms his claims of silencing him.

 

Of those options, I will take the one that removes the venom from the wound, even if it "looks bad". Nothing we do will look GOOD.

 

Q: Why the shady backdoor dealings?

 

A: That was just a terrible approach in general.

 

Assuming we're talking about the "secretive" polling of members to see if they'd want Winter removed, my understanding is that because the community is so gung-ho about transparency and being involved in decisions, it was suggested to ask members for their opinions. I was not present when this idea was suggested, and when I arrived to the situation, it had already been brought up that this approach was shady looking and ultimately just a really bad idea. Any polling was probably a very poor sample group (heavily biased), or just small in general.

 

It WAS suggested to make a public forum thread about the idea, but it was noted that turning it into a "trial" would involve weeks or months of drama, and considering the whole intention was NOT to have stupid amounts of drama, especially over something like "removing a member we think is bad for the community", that idea got scrapped quickly.

 

Q: And the secretiveness? No public announcement?

 

A: That's mostly on me.

 

I worried that posting a thread or status announcing that Winter was banned, and that I was the one to do it came off as boasting or being smug. There was no delusion that people wouldn't notice his banning, nor that no drama might ensue. My hope was that anyone who noticed would post a more innocent inquiry, rather than immediately chew us out for it.

 

Retrospectively, not making a statement made the situation look sketchier, due to the already sketchy circumstances. That's on me.

 

Q: I still think this whole thing is unjust. He only had 3 warning points before the ban and didn't do anything to warrant a permaban.

 

A: You're right. But that changes nothing.

 

The reason I opted for a permanent ban as opposed to a temporary ban boils down to one simple thing: I don't believe Winter will change. There is no precedent to warrant giving him that chance. Like a judge considering parole for a repeat criminal, the record gives a strong indication that change is unlikely, and the risk outweighs the benefit.

 

The final call and responsibility were mine. All the mods (except Smear, who was absent entirely) were in favor of banning him, but I felt it best if I handled the ban personally for several reasons. Firstly, because I've often been the one supporting or defending Winter, being the one to remove him would be a personal indication that I supported the motion, and was willing to commit to it. Secondly, because my approach is ultimately unbiased and logical. You can question the motives of some of the other mods all you like, but I supported the motion, and enabled it to pass. I believe the action was justified.

 

Lastly, and most importantly, because I don't yield to weak arguments. You can implant tiny seeds of doubt regarding another mod's decisions by pointing out how they may be biased, or impulsive, or inexperienced, or whatever, but that mod didn't ban Winter. I did. And my approach to such matters is very different.

 

If someone believes the decision was incorrect, they will make no headway in reversing it simply by complaining about it. They have to have a compelling and logical argument.

 

Q: Unban Winter at once!

 

A: I feel like this was supposed to be said earlier, but I don't remember what context I was going to use it in.

 

Too often, the community makes (rightful) arguments that the mod team is fairly lacking in authority and decision making. Many times, a situation gets mishandled and drama ensues. This can be the result of poor communication, or just our desire to avoid excessive drama, that ironically, makes the situation worse.

 

Caving to the demands of a few that oppose a decision will only make the mod team weaker and more ineffectual. We did mishandle the situation, some of that being blame solely upon myself, for not making a public statement, and not giving Winter a heads-up before doing so. BUT...those decisions were made with logic that was perfectly sound AT THE TIME, and only in retrospect proved to be a more harmful course.

 

And the whole shady business with polling members was done with what I think was the attempt to follow the community's desire for transparency, before it occurred to us that seeking feedback in such a manner was a TERRIBLE idea.

 

Q: Zai sucks as PR mod! Why didn't HE make this statement?

 

A: ...is this a serious question?

 

No, probably not. But to answer it anyway, the statement concerns action I took, responsibility I hold, logic I employed, written in a manner you can be confident reflects my thoughts on the situation, and not typed up by someone else.

 

 

 

 

...and it took me over two and a half hours! I could be doing WAY more interesting things with that time.