kryo Options

[micron]

so kryo (james) wants to speak but complained to me that his topics are always being closed... so lets hear him out. also staff, why dont you openly discuss here about the problems kryo is causing. maybe by having the opposing views come together like this we'll be able to find a middle ground.

if you wish to participate, keep in mind that communication is a two way street. when two opposing views clash, it doesnt neccessarily mean one is entirely right and the other entirely wrong. try to be open minded, consider the opposing view(s), be honest, admit to wrongdoings when wrong, and hopefully together we'll be able to get to the bottom of this.

please keep away from personal attacks. if this topic becomes one big staff bashing thread, its going to be closed. a little tact never hurts, so lets try use this as an opportunity to learn from and understand each another.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

*sensible

Again, that's fine. However, he was causing upset, which, while it doesn't violate a specific rule, caused whoever warned him to act for what they perceived to be the greater good. If there is disagreement about that course of action (and I think we've established that there is), that is unfortunate. However, unless someone can propose a solution which means that no judgement will have to be excercised in these situations, these things will happen.

And I can't imagine anyone is upset now. That would be why action was taken then, and not today. However, if someone can say 'what a dick move,' and move on about some things, why not others?

[*tripvertigo*]

*sensible

Again, that's fine. However, he was causing upset, which, while it doesn't violate a specific rule, caused whoever warned him to act for what they perceived to be the greater good. If there is disagreement about that course of action (and I think we've established that there is), that is unfortunate. However, unless someone can propose a solution which means that no judgement will have to be excercised in these situations, these things will happen.

And I can't imagine anyone is upset now. That would be why action was taken then, and not today. However, if someone can say 'what a dick move,' and move on about some things, why not others?

i believe i have suggested a solution to this in the past. moderators shouldnt have the burden of having to exercise their "better judgement" in contreversial incidents like this when clearly their judgement may not always be right.

In situations like these, they should HAVE to consult with an administrator or headstaff so that the accountability is on higher-managements shoulders.

This makes the enforcement of REAL rules more consistant.


What I get from this topic is that when members do something wrong, or I should say when A member does something wrong (because apparently not every situation is handled in the same objective manner that it should be), they are punished to the extent of someones better judgement, which may (at most times) be total bullshit.

However, when a mod or group of mods does something wrong, nothing is done. And to avoid the situation, they close the topics that might implicate them.


And if you are going to say that he was warned for upsetting a large group of people or causing a ruckus, then I have to refer to a particular incident involving myself and certain untrue rumors that went on for weeks with absolutely no action from the moderating staff. Now more than half of this community thinks im totally schizophrenic, and in terms of what would actually happen in real life? I could sue jusun for something like deformation of character not because he LED this crusade against me, but because his staff chose not to do anything. But I guess there must be some vague selection process that the mods use to either ignore a situation and let it go for amusement purposes or to act way too brashly just because they may not like a certain person (lets say, james).


And PS:

I let your ironic mispelling of the word "illiterate" go. Have the courtesy to let mine.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

i believe i have suggested a solution to this in the past. moderators shouldnt have the burden of having to exercise their "better judgement" in contreversial incidents like this when clearly their judgement may not always be right.

In situations like these, they should HAVE to consult with an administrator or headstaff so that the accountability is on higher-managements shoulders.

This makes the enforcement of REAL rules more consistant.
What I get from this topic is that when members do something wrong, or I should say when A member does something wrong (because apparently not every situation is handled in the same objective manner that it should be), they are punished to the extent of someones better judgement, which may (at most times) be total bullshit.

However, when a mod or group of mods does something wrong, nothing is done. And to avoid the situation, they close the topics that might implicate them.
And if you are going to say that he was warned for upsetting a large group of people or causing a ruckus, then I have to refer to a particular incident involving myself and certain untrue rumors that went on for weeks with absolutely no action from the moderating staff. Now more than half of this community thinks im totally schizophrenic, and in terms of what would actually happen in real life? I could sue jusun for something like deformation of character not because he LED this crusade against me, but because his staff chose not to do anything. But I guess there must be some vague selection process that the mods use to either ignore a situation and let it go for amusement purposes or to act way too brashly just because they may not like a certain person (lets say, james).
And PS:

I let your ironic mispelling of the word "illiterate" go. Have the courtesy to let mine.

That doesn't reduce the amount of judgement used, it just means that a different person is using their judgement instead. Plus, if mods did have to report to admins before acting, I would give it an hour before we started hearing 'tattletales,' or 'Hitler Youth' started coming out. It's swapping one set of disatisfaction for another.

And while I appreciate the idea that 'real' rules ought to be more consistant, what has to be kept in mind is that most of the violations here aren't based on tangible, steadfast foundations. I mean, spamming to someone is harmless to another, and the same with bashing, or with controversy. I think it is better that people act, and then mistakes get made from time to time, and then dealt with, rather than every little thing be queued up for a big discussion beforehand, so that by the time action is taken, it is in the past and no one cares anyway, but will still complain if it doesn't go that way. A mod 'getting' something wrong doesn't necessarily equate to a mod 'doing' something wrong, if you understand what I mean.

Oh, and I don't mind if you correct me, so go for it. Although I should point out that, as a rule, my typing sucks, not my spelling. How tiresome that it should happen to be 'illiterate,' though. Truly, the Irony Fairy frolics... Oh, and you would presumably be suing Jusun for defamation of character.

--

James, the fact that only Rebs and Suzzette have warned you (well, and Kaycee, but like you said, that was resolved) doesn't prove that they have a vendetta against you, that is really something of an extrapolation. In fact, given that you take into account the fear that some members supposedly have of persecution for criticising staff, I think you should perhaps consider the other side of the coin, before resorting to bias as a logical explanation. Personally, I think that either set of fears are ill-founded and childish, but there you go.

Oh, and having just reread your post, I realize you were saying that you didn't personally believe in a vendetta, but still, it will serve as a response to something along the line, I'm sure, so my bad for not reading.

And actually, I'd forgotten that you're warn level actually affected you're Member title, so technically, you're right about having ore to lose (or, I suppose, gain depending on whatever it is we're looking at exactly). Although, given that they haven't said so, and indeed in Rebecca's case have specifically said otherwise, I would imagine that they do not intend to change their minds. The official reason for no apology (such as it is) being that they aren't sorry. But this really is a battle of interpretation (and YES, I know that yours is the only valid one from your vantage point [or, as I'm sure you'll say, from any, but that REALLY is a losing battle for all parties]), and I'm not sure that it can be one, so please, as a personal appeal for the sake of my sanity, would you consider letting it go?