I actually thought Decay would be banned for the post too when I read it, it just seemed obvious to me.
The following text is not oriented against all admins. (I won't give names, drama hungering bananas)
The way I see it is that if some admins got to the topic before anyone saw it, then they would trash it, but now they will just have to play along.
I see some instances from time to time that are just horrible, though I won't list them here as it would be nothing but drama bait and not contribute anything to the matter at all. But fact is that some admins just do shit, just like Sarge, just a bit more "under the rug".
This is the staff section, the way this area works, is that new threads by regular users are not even visible to the public until a staff member approves/opens it. Though, a bit of transparency is needed: Anyone with a staff account can
approve/open threads, though it is advised that the staff be on the same page about "big" posts like this one that are about staff reforms and other possibly drama(or "kangaroo court" as one person said) inducing things.
In general, the deterrence of or archiving of threads like that isn't always the product of malice. I amended the Trash
area's description because there are some non-inflammatory posts
that get sent there. I may rename it to Reycle Bin or something, I don't know for sure yet. (I also renamed "Off-topic Chat" to "General Chat", for example)
But even while I agree with what I just said (dohoho
), I also acknowledge that there are biases and other issues that will crop up in almost any situation, and I would not be surprised if they are in our staff.
I honestly like to hear feedback from the community about the specifics of individuals' actions, not so much ad hominem insults on the people but like some of you said, "I won't give names", etc. It's good to get some feedback and critique on what we're doing wrong, so that we can do what's right more easily and more often. At least, I have my fingers crossed.
Questions remain though:
Why doesn't Decay's post about Sarge say he got warned for it? The usual is that the post show that it have done something wrong and other can learn from that and not post similarily.
[...] Not that related sidenote
When admins give a warning, they send a PM with "you have recived a warning".
This is perfectly fine, but I have yet to see these PM's actually tell what rule you have broken and why they think so and how you can avoid doing so again. That should be pretty standard, unless it is with people who are known not to give a damn anyway (moderator must judge that), or if their time is short (should be marked).
I'll be transparent about this: The staff doesn't actually have anything in our staff rules and guidelines
about editing posts to state the user was warned.
I think this was done by one moderator for a post that got lots of reports after the user was alerady warned, and other moderators followed suit to prevent that issue from happening again.
So, further transparency: I was the one that warned Decay, and his opening post in the thread had not been reported by anyone, so no one took it upon themselves to edit the post and clarify that it was warned because there wasn't a flood of reports on it.
I will also state that when I said that the warn was not meant to punish, I was clarifying the literal way the warn system works, you are not punished for getting 2-3 point warns, you only get punished automatically by the system after it reaches a higher value than that. I did this because for what ever reason, a lot of individuals that are warned interpret it as a harsh action that itself is meant to punish them, even though no actual post deletion, suspensions, or banning has occurred. Sorry for the confusion.
I also told Decay that they could talk to me about any staff issues they had, but also encouraged them to communicate things with the staff, like they are doing right now. So in on that basic level, I have no problem with this thread and the subject of staff reforms. Like I said before, I've been trying to update and fix up a few things on the site for the past few weeks already, so why stop?
And now to those I vote for:
Jenova - He is obvious.
Mifu - I find him obvious, he actually give a fuck about those he communicate with.
Legion - I haven't seen much of hes work, but what I actually have seen is good and un-biased.
I personally think that people posting their favorite "who I want on staff" dream-team thing isn't going to help us, we have to address the actual roots of the issue. Think of this like adding more features to a game before you iron out the bugs and glitches that already exist.
As for your list, I have spoken with Jenova on and off over the years, they do not want to be an administrator. As I stated earlier, Jenova already helps out in #staff on IRC.
As for Mifu and Legion, they're already part of the staff, and Legion is a moderator already. Are you saying you'd like them to be an Administrator or something? This ultimately is up to them.
I want to just clarify, realize that when a bunch of people vote for certain persons (like Jenova) to be admins or whatnot, they still have the choice to accept or deny the position themselves. We shouldn't pressure people into doing something they may not want or have the time to do.
I'd suggest less emphasis on "adding more cooks to the kitchen" and more emphasis on describing issues that you have.