[Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Summary:

Mirror from 05

[Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Dexanote 17 Oct 2021 23:31

I have posted a discussion for a statement I have made regarding the events of an extended staff incident that occurred in November 2020.

This is the thread concerning the actual statement made. Several links to relevant information are found in there.

This thread contains the Staff Discussion about the above link.

The intention behind this thread is to clarify any questions people have with the contents of the statement. Please be familiar with the above threads before posting to this thread. Thank you.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

aismallard 09 Nov 2021 02:41

Noting that thedeadlymoose has posted a notable timeline update to the thread.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

ghostchibi 18 Oct 2021 04:44

Looking at the O5 discussion on this, rounderhouse makes essentially the same points I would make, except worded more eloquently. With that being said, I want to talk about the censure part of this.

Mann had proposed the suggestion for a willful censure of ourselves in January, as a show of recognition of how poorly the Nov 2020 Incident was handled. An important point is that staff members do not have the ability to call for or enact censure on themselves, but this is a matter which (per the Charter) should be decided by Administrators and/or the Disciplinary Team.

It's almost a whole year from the original incident, and nine months since Mann proposed self-censure. I feel like after a certain point, recognizing that the admins and Disc team are unable to formally enact censure, you should have gone ahead and just self-imposed a censure. I find it hard-pressed that anyone would find punishing yourself in the absence of punishment from others to be irresponsible overreaching. At this point, it feels like you've taken advantage of the fact that nobody has been able to set up a formal call to censure. You are now waiting for further setup to allow for this discussion to even start, despite the fact that you and Mann agree that you both should be censured. At the very least, informal self-censure would show that you take it seriously, and that you aren't trying to take advantage of this long delay.

EDIT: wikidot syntax oops

Last edited on 18 Oct 2021 04:44 by ghostchibi Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Gekkoguy 18 Oct 2021 04:58

This echoes my thoughts exactly. Its entirely within your and mann's capability to self invoke what amounts to a censure, even if its not officially. Relying on the bureaucracy of the wiki to submit you to it is overcomplicating the situation at best and rules lawyering at worst

---

PM about tabletop wargames

Last edited on 18 Oct 2021 05:16 by Gekkoguy Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

ghostchibi 18 Oct 2021 06:30

Something I missed (because I hit post too early whoops) is also the fact that functionally, the staff allowed to vote for censure are almost entirely Disc team staff. So, Disciplinary team + one non-Disc admin are tasked with deciding whether the Disciplinary captain and de facto head admin will be censured. You see how this is not exactly bringing up much confidence, given the specific situation leading to this situation of "should we censure."

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

thedeadlymoose 19 Oct 2021 21:08

General response to this & replies to it:

I find it hard-pressed that anyone would find punishing yourself in the absence of punishment from others to be irresponsible overreaching.

Magnus resigned, demoting himself permanently, which is a much harsher punishment than censure. However, many, many people have suggested that this was actually an attempt to avoid all punishment.

Consider, too, that Disc/Admins are obligated to offer not just censure, but the option of demotion. Dex & Mann self-censuring would actually dodge the ability for Disc/Admins to demote them, and would also remove other abilities that staff have (which are under discussion and I or another admin will update ASAP).

On these grounds, I do in fact believe that self-censure on at least Dex's part would have been irresponsible overreaching. This is not a defense of the delay at all, however, which I feel was a massive mistake and requires accountability in the form of explanations, apologies, and changes so that this never happens again. I am personally working on all of this right now and so are other admins.

You are now waiting for further setup to allow for this discussion to even start

This isn't correct, but I understand why it seems this way. I addressed this and many other points in the O5 discussion thread. I will also try to respond more to this thread for any questions.

---

EDIT:

Something I missed (because I hit post too early whoops) is also the fact that functionally, the staff allowed to vote for censure are almost entirely Disc team staff. So, Disciplinary team + one non-Disc admin are tasked with deciding whether the Disciplinary captain and de facto head admin will be censured. You see how this is not exactly bringing up much confidence, given the specific situation leading to this situation of "should we censure."

Not quite correct. All admins + all Disc team staff may vote on a censure for an admin.

This is absolutely still a problem, mind you. And there's a worse part: Disc & admins separately have unilateral power to not bring a censure to the table with no accountability requirements except… again, to admins.

This was once considered a good idea by all staff. I never liked it, and whatever benefit it brought has been lost for, at minimum, a full year, if not longer.

I think this MUST be changed, and I'm working on that now.

Last edited on 19 Oct 2021 21:11 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 19 Oct 2021 22:40

Not quite correct. All admins + all Disc team staff may vote on a censure for an admin.

You misunderstand, you're both right. All admins + Disc team are allowed to vote on a censure. Right now, this means all of Disc and one non-disc admin (stormbreath), because all the other admins are already on Disc. While this is definitely the closest we've ever been to the Admin-Disc Venn diagram being one circle inside a slightly larger circle, historically there has been a pretty got-dang large overlap - I doubt there were ever more than 2-3 non-disc admins (at least in the last 5 years) at a time, tops.

Magnus resigned, demoting himself permanently, which is a much harsher punishment than censure. However, many, many people have suggested that this was actually an attempt to avoid all punishment.

Given Magnus
A) notably said after the fact that he had been the victim of a witch hunt and people had been convinced he was "guilty of supposed sins"
B) resigned after Mann proposed censures for both of them as well as Dex
I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Magnus demoted himself in an act of self-flagellation for any missteps in the Disc threads. Hopefully that clarifies my — and some others' — reasoning for our belief in the latter.

---

That said, I've made my thoughts very clear in that Dex shouldn't have self-censured but should have taken a much more active effort in bringing the censure to the rest of admins/Disc and I do not find the explanations for the delays to be sufficient enough for 11 months.

Last edited on 19 Oct 2021 22:41 by Rounderhouse Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

ghostchibi 21 Oct 2021 07:00

Magnus resigned, demoting himself permanently, which is a much harsher punishment than censure. However, many, many people have suggested that this was actually an attempt to avoid all punishment.

Indeed, we have a good example of why harsher self-imposed punishment isn't the most responsible option. "Punishment" in my post refers to the specific punishment of informal self censure I was talking about throughout the post. At no point did I bring up resignation because I'm severely opposed to Dex's resignation without some sort of staff discussion. I did not and will not talk about resignation, nor will I propose that Dex do it for the same reason I'm suspicious of the real intent behind Magnus's resignation.

---

Consider, too, that Disc/Admins are obligated to offer not just censure, but the option of demotion. Dex & Mann self-censuring would actually dodge the ability for Disc/Admins to demote them, and would also remove other abilities that staff have (which are under discussion and I or another admin will update ASAP).

I should have used "informal" more frequently in my post, since that's what I'm referring to when I talk about censure. Self-censure in an official capacity is indeed a misuse of power as it blocks out other staff from weighing in on the decision, but Dex already clarified that declaring his own formal censure isn't allowed anyway:

An important point is that staff members do not have the ability to call for or enact censure on themselves, but this is a matter which (per the Charter) should be decided by Administrators and/or the Disciplinary Team.

I took that to mean that he also would not be trying to officially censure himself, and that all of the discussion of enacting censure on himself at this moment (before the admins + disc team discusses) would be purely informal. Should he do this, nothing prevents admins + disc team from later enacting official disciplinary action, censure or otherwise.

---

You are now waiting for further setup to allow for this discussion to even start

This isn't correct, but I understand why it seems this way.

Dex's statement says that official discussion will be initiated by at least the 24th. Dex is not able to do anything in an official capacity until the official discussion starts, and thus there is absolutely nothing for Dex to do but wait, unless he decides to make an informal, self-imposed decision. I'm assuming that when you say you address this in your 05 thread post, you're referring to the "Why the Delay?" section, but I don't really see anything there that explains how what I said isn't correct. It explains all the delays, but not anything about the situation between when Dex posted this until the 24th.

---

Not quite correct. All admins + all Disc team staff may vote on a censure for an admin.

Rounder helped correct this underneath, but I want to say that "all admins + all Disc team" is synonymous with "all Disc team + one non-Disc admin" right now. That needs to be kept in mind. Procedure is being followed as required, but there is an obvious skewing in team membership of staff involved.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Cyvstvi 20 Oct 2021 01:31

Hello, ghostchibi.

I find it hard-pressed that anyone would find punishing yourself in the absence of punishment from others to be irresponsible overreaching.

Well, you found somebody. I personally do find punishing yourself in the absence of punishment to be a form of irresponsible overreach.

You can't just go ahead and give yourself a punishment without consulting other members who deal with the application of discipline and punishment. Otherwise, you'll be giving yourself an entirely biased punishment with literally zero oversight. There's nobody to account for the decision, nor anybody to consider and evaluate the charges brought against you.

For example, if Mann or Dex were to censure themselves, the remainder of Staff would be unable or unwilling to explore alternative avenues of punishment, because a decision has effectively already been reached.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

ghostchibi 21 Oct 2021 05:34

I should have clarified re: the “official”-ness of said punishment. Self-decided, self-imposed official punishment is indeed overreach that will prevent others from issuing any other form of official punishment. Making an unofficial decision for self-disciplinary action while still allowing the applicable staff to make an official disciplinary decision at a later date is not. I’m stating that taking responsibility unofficially once it became clearer that the official response was slow-coming and would not happen for quite some time is reasonable.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

ghostchibi 21 Oct 2021 16:42

EDIT: Aaaaaaaaanf there it goes, good ol’ wikidot. This post blanked, see above instead

Last edited on 21 Oct 2021 16:50 by ghostchibi Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

aquafloats 18 Oct 2021 05:12

I mean, you both messed up and a censure is pretty much like, something that should happen. It's deserved, really. This just feels like running away from that— most people think it's deserved, it just… never happened, and people forgot until now. It's just a censure, it shouldn't be a big deal to take it, if only to show that you're taking it seriously. Simple as that.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Sirslash47 18 Oct 2021 06:01

Honestly, instead of making this a discussion again you guys could just have started your censure.

I probably should argument more but I just can't be bothered anymore if I'm not sure stuff is actually going to happen (tbf this is not limited to this). Might add later but I got better things to do atm and there are other official ways to report stuff on the wiki.

Edit: Also for the record I'm highly of the opinion that as a disc member you take punishment just like you give it out (kinda like critters but more influencal). If you can't do that you are not a good disc member. Also reading more of the comments making the comparison/equation to this being kinda "choosing" or "opting" when others don't have that option, I feel like the only disciplinary action here is something you guys are forced to do without possible delay. I can only think of two things that apply for that but I don't need to tell you what those are.

---

Edit 3: in response to thedeadlymoose's comments

open, long post

Not really gonna try and correct anything said about the powers of disc and admins but due to the big amount of questionable things admins (and other groups) did this year, I heavily doubts that is how it is practically.

About the delay:

1: Formal extension granted due to the Harmony situation. Staff generally seem to agree this was merited.

Yeah so… this delay already doesn't hold ground. The entire thing happened multiple months after the november incident so there already was a delay before this. As a byproduct all following delays also do not hold ground. To take a bit from gee's comment on O5;

maybe a week or two while people decided how was best to handle this, not almost a whole year.

Two weeks would be mid december at most. Everything a decent amount of time later is already delayed.

Formal extension granted until more admins can be promoted & trained. I beleive this was also announced.

Genuine question did Dex train someone, as someone in that position/situation/under investigation at the time should not be training anyone. Also this is not really a solid reason since admins come from moderators. Those people already know how the site runs and are in adcaps anyway.

Informal extension granted because admins were overloaded, and Disc Team felt they had lost the confidence of staff members to do anything except censure Dex and maybe Mann.

Informal extension is not an extension. Period. Get it on O5 with or without vote but record it. Informal extension are worthless. Also you state;

I'm foggier on whether Extension 3 was made clear to staff.

This is something staff 100% should have been in the clear about at the time, and now. Also as stated before it is not an extension.

About the plagiarism thing, this site takes plagiarism way too serious. Not even academic organisations or universities go in like we do.

But the fact is, we cannot avoid unfair charges of plagiarism. We absolutely cannot.

That is true, but the sheer automatic permabans some people got for something small is just gobsmacking. There have been instances though were it clearly was the right call though. Just a shame there is almost no inbetween where there should be.

But, "claiming Disc has the power to unilaterally censure or demote"… well, the reason Disc DOESN'T have that power is because Troy and I and other staff at the time denied this power to Disc repeatedly, and then enshrined it in the Charter.

Did you (as group or team) come up with an alternative or not or do you still have things from their lingering that could help? Now we are stuck in quite the predicament.

We now consider it an emergency situation and it has been our top priority since the Akimoto situation was addressed

This is not to you personally but to staff in general (even though that is also a bad wording). How come this is only now an emergency and why does this sound familiar (again)?

I can vouch that every day since then, admins have spent many hours working on all parts of this situation.

Do you mean admins part of the disc team or the full admin team?

I wish to apologize again that this hadn't been explained, and to clarify that it would have been explained ASAP in the next few days if I hadn't done so. More information is also forthcoming ASAP.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for as you added quite the constructive comment which imo wasn't expected from you.

I also saw your edit at the end but no, extension 1 and 2 don't hold stand imo.

---

From your comment as a reply to gee;

I think now we should be requesting it from the community instead.

(This is about asking for extensions)
To be blunt in your big post about delays etc. you mention that admins have worked relentlesssly about this issue and this is already way too delayed. I don't think we need one nor see a reason for this with the things mentioned above.

---

From your comment as a reply to Lucio;

Censure is a form of temporary demotion that can be enacted only as a consequence of either a Disciplinary Vote thread created per Charter standards, or a Vote of No Confidence thread.

With all the best will in the world I don't think this situation we are in now there should have as a result a temporary thing.

---

From your second reply to Lucio;

However, Disc team wasn't forced to consider it, and admins didn't force ourselves or Disc to consider it in a timely fashion (see my post below).

So you are telling me there was a disc case the disc team did not consider? For the love of God correct me here.

---

As a final note, I kinda admit I seem to be more on Dex on this one, but I genuinely can only recall one encounter with Mann in more than one year which was like 3 lines on IRC or something. Kinda seems weird to me that someone with that extend of power is unheard of (also checking O5 I don't find him back really). It's almost as if he is on censure or just inactive already, so what would make a difference? Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Edit 4:

This power is only supposed to be used to cut through red tape reflecting staff consensus and/or improvement in taff operation that does not enable or consistute a misuse/abuse of power.

If this power is used for something else, something has gone wrong, and accountability must be had. (I think this may have occured recently followed by an apology but I'm foggy on this.)

This is you answering to "admins being able to just do stuff". Whilt I agree can you explain to me how you think admin fiats in conversations fall under this?

Last edited on 20 Oct 2021 03:45 by Sirslash47 Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

thedeadlymoose 19 Oct 2021 21:36

First off, I don't know you, but I greatly appreciate your lengthy response — even covering my edits.

Not really gonna try and correct anything said about the powers of disc and admins but due to the big amount of questionable things admins (and other groups) did this year, I heavily doubts that is how it is practically.

I hear you, and I don't think you're off-base.

In my role as Reserve Admin, I have been investigating and bringing up any of these issues. I can promise to investigate anything anyone passes on to me through a message to another staff member (sorry, my wikidot PMs are Ruined), or give an acknowledgement that I'm incapable and bring it up to all staff as well as admins for accountability.

Yeah so… this delay already doesn't hold ground. The entire thing happened multiple months after the november incident so there already was a delay before this.

No censure was suggested to Disc/Admins prior to this incident. Disc/Admins cannot be required to act except on request, on grounds of not possessing supernatural powers.

If I am incorrect, please let me know, as this could be an Issue. ​

Genuine question did Dex train someone, as someone in that position/situation/under investigation at the time should not be training anyone.

I'm unclear on this & will leave it for another to answer (sorry if it gets lost, pls feel free to ask again).

Also this is not really a solid reason since admins come from moderators. Those people already know how the site runs and are in adcaps anyway

Moderators do not have Disc power unless they're… well, on Disc. Also, demonstrably, staff have encountered a great deal of confusion about how the site is supposed to be run, as demonstrated by staff on every single side of this debate. That is not an excuse either! It's just a statement of fact.

Adcap isn't a good source for determining how the site is or should be run. Adcap is only for admin/captain coordination. It's also been the source of many errors and most admins/captains have accordingly stopped using it so extensively.

Informal extension is not an extension. Period. Get it on O5 with or without vote but record it. Informal extension are worthless.

You aren't wrong, I believe.

This is something staff 100% should have been in the clear about at the time, and now. Also as stated before it is not an extension.

Yes, it is an extension. It can still be an inappropriate or misguided extension, but it is an extension. We can't actually enforce rules or agreements that don't exist, which is also what protects you, personally, from being banned without cause. (Which is why I'm working on making this specific thing a rule, public agreement, or both, either of which force admins to be accountable.)

About the plagiarism thing, this site takes plagiarism way too serious. Not even academic organisations or universities go in like we do.

I cannot express how much I agree with you, but I am extremely outvoted. If this changes, best believe I will do what I can. Again.

That is true, but the sheer automatic permabans some people got for something small is just gobsmacking. There have been instances though were it clearly was the right call though. Just a shame there is almost no inbetween where there should be.

This is heartbreaking to hear. I have been ignoring plagiarism cases due to the amount of abuse I received on the topic since Metaphysician, including from friends who are staff. I hope you are wrong. I am sorry, but I cannot currently address this issue. I hope other admins look into it.

EDIT: I've linked a screenshot of the plagiarism bits of this post to staff chat & asked them to assess.

Did you (as group or team) come up with an alternative or not or do you still have things from their lingering that could help? Now we are stuck in quite the predicament.

I'm forming an alternative now, because, pardon my French, this is bullshit. It's not even fair to US, the admins/Disc saddled with this power we don't want, but it's more unfair to everyone else.

Even if my alternative is no good, I expect it will prompt other staff to propose things. I can offer my consultation to whoever asks, if they don't mind me being slow.

This is not to you personally but to staff in general (even though that is also a bad wording). How come this is only now an emergency and why does this sound familiar (again)?

I thought I explained this: because admins assessed that yes, in fact, Dex & Disc really did fuck up in an extremely serious way, plus, we finally received direct evidence that this hard created a much more widespread issue than we initially could tell.

This may or may not be our fault — I present it as a reason, not an excuse.

Do you mean admins part of the disc team or the full admin team?

Every admin who is capable of handling ANY additional staffwork.

This is not being handled by Disc at all any longer, at admin discretion (allowed per Charter). Disc will be given an appropriate chance to participate and add their recommendations per the Charter, but that hasn't happened yet (maybe a few days, I think, maybe less).

To be blunt in your big post about delays etc. you mention that admins have worked relentlesssly about this issue and this is already way too delayed. I don't think we need one nor see a reason for this with the things mentioned above.

Yes, no delay is merited at all and admins would be out of line to ask. The only delays now will be "human necessity" delays, and that should amount to days, not weeks. If not, both myself and other admins will need to explain to all of you why, and we better have a good reason if so. However, I don't think there will be more delays.

So you are telling me there was a disc case the disc team did not consider? For the love of God correct me here.

They considered it, but did not finish consideration in a timely fashion. Bad, but not what you're saying.

As a final note, I kinda admit I seem to be more on Dex on this one, but I genuinely can only recall one encounter with Mann in more than one year which was like 3 lines on IRC or something.

We will likely need to create a separate thread for Mann. Mann suggested self-censure on much thinner grounds than Dex did, solely on grounds of "as he had the most experience with Disc by far, his failure to stop or fix the Cerastes thread is more serious than for any other admin except Dex."

Ordinarily, no one could be censured for this. This is not an ordinary situation.

However, that isn't the case for Dex's actions (which Dex agrees with).

This will be made clear with full details and opportunity for staff input (and community input here) ASAP.

It's almost as if he is on censure or just inactive already, so what would make a difference? Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Mann has been fairly active in policy consultation, which is very specifically why Mann believes he must be censured in addition to what I said above.

Last edited on 19 Oct 2021 21:43 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Sirslash47 20 Oct 2021 21:12

I really appreciate your throughout elaboration especially considering you are reserve staff. I am not 100% on all things as you probably know, but this is very constructive to the discussion at hand, and I know I take a hard stand on things like this and include details a lot.

Also I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with abuse like that. For the other times you said sorry here and on the O5 thread, I actually think you don't have much to apologize for since your actions really speak volumes in a really good way.

My only regret is that I saw your comment a few hours earlier but wikidot ate it so I couldn't reply and this isn't a thing I wanted to say in PM's (also my condolences for your inbox).

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ihp 18 Oct 2021 06:48

I have to object to the language used by staff members in the thread on O5. Instead of referring to it as the 'Cerastes incident' or the 'Great Seal incident' or whatever, why not just call it the 'November 2020 Incident'? It's neutral and doesn't implicate a single user as being at fault in the whole thing, as opposed to the language used now, which is… somewhat aggressive, I have to say.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Limeyy 18 Oct 2021 10:07

I used this wording to denote Cerastes’ first thread as compared to the second (Which I used SSSC Incident for) when talking about the two incidents separately rather than the November 2020 incident as a whole. I did not mean to be inflammatory or aggressive, I just personally find the whole ‘Cerastes thread 1 and 2’ confusing at best and actively difficult to understand if you’re unfamiliar with the incident at worst, not to mention putting a lot of the attention on one individual still, in this case Cerastes. Will try and edit to avoid that wording this afternoon, very open to suggestions on how else to describe the first thread in shorthand.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ihp 18 Oct 2021 19:40

I did not mean to be inflammatory or aggressive

I would really, really like to believe you here, but that describes the apparent behavior of everyone on the thread, not just you.

I like to think that, individually, all of the newer members of staff are acting in good faith. But when everyone dogpiles on top of one another on a single topic like this, the same talking points are repeated, things that senior members of staff say get shouted down, and nothing gets accomplished beyond intimidation and stonewalling. This happened in SCPD, and this is happening now on O5.

(Also, you still refer to it as the Great Seal Incident at one point in your post. I'd suggest referring to it as just 'November 2020 Part 1'.)

Last edited on 18 Oct 2021 19:47 by Ihp Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Limeyy 18 Oct 2021 22:07

I appreciate the good faith engagement and I do apologize if anything I said appears to toe the line. That really wasn't my intention and a large part of the reason I was one of the many staffers who pushed for this conversation to take place publicly - so y'all can give your thoughts, have a say and see what staff are saying about an incredibly major event to the community - and call us out when we go too far.

I want to try and dispell the notion of dogpiling here - admittedly, me and Rounder replied to Dex with vaguely similar responses - largely because I was writing mine for ages, posted and then realized that Rounder had beat me to it by about 10 minutes. But the idea of this discussion thread is to be a conversation. Everybody's engaging positively and bringing their own perspective to the discussion. Often that involves repeating points, but there's no other way to say you agree with certain parts of what somebody else is saying without a low value 'yeah I agree with x' that adds nothing at all to the discussion.

Right now, the discussion is a little bit stacked on one side, but any other member of disc or other members of staff involved with the incident is welcome to answer queries by staff and hopefully will - the thread isn't even 24 hours old yet at the time of me posting this. I understand there have been some very heated moments in scpd, but the idea of having these publicly in a place where the entire community can see and in a place where all of staff are open to comment (and everyone else here!) should hopefully prevent that, and I think seeing everybody in the thread engage in good faith is a great example of that working. This is a very new way of discussing staff issues (as compared to just dealing with them privately in SSSC), and one with far more community engagement and transparency rather than it happening behind closed doors, and I'd hate for it to not be given a proper chance. I hope you can agree this is better than a fast paced discord discussion (which would have the same members of staff talking) where we don't have time to think things over and nobody can see what we're talking about until a month later when Recaps come out.

(As a secondary note, as mentioned above I'd rather not use part 1 and 2 for confusions sake for those not as intimately familiar with the November 2020 incident, myself included :p. Will brainstorm on another more descriptive name and edit it if it hits me. Also very open to suggestion from either yourself or anybody else watching this thread.)

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Nils Severin 20 Oct 2021 12:32

Seconding this.

As Limeyy have stated, the discussion is "a little bit stacked on one side". I personally sympathize with staff members who would not answer after having their case brought forward by someone else and thedeadlymoose seems to have made most points of one case while they have several opponents borderlining on dogpiling.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 26 Oct 2021 19:11

The decision to not post in the thread is one people make on their own. Moose themself has repeatedly asked senior staff and others in staffcord to post on the threads - no one is doing it. Attributing this decision — lack of decision, really — to outside factors might be true but at some point you need to buck up and make yourself heard if you want to be a participant in the discourse.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Nils Severin 27 Oct 2021 07:18

As I said, I think there are few points that haven't been brought up yet. I don't think you need to "buck up" if your opinion already is representated in the dialogue, because that would result in unnecessary dogpiling.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 27 Oct 2021 07:39

Dogpiling is often thrown around on the site but the fact is that the difference between dogpiling and just people agreeing with each other and supporting each others points is entirely one of perspective. At risk of quoting myself:

And for those people — should they stop vocalizing their opinions because someone else has already said it?

The idea that you shouldn't make yourself heard because someone else said the opinion is deeply bizarre in a discussion that hinges so heavily on what the broad consensus of community members is.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Nils Severin 27 Oct 2021 11:46

Some of the posts in 05command do not only represent agreeing statements but merely reiterations of the same opinion, and so I believe it is very close to dogpiling. At the same time, there are new aspects brought up, but also plenty of old ones already discussed.

I don't think we will necessarily get anything out of this discussion though. Staff themselves clearly do not believe the thread is being dogpiled. I do think we all can accept the fact that there seems to be two or maybe three deeply-grounded perspectives involved in this matter. If we choose to get involved in the discussion I hope we can be a little more sensible to how we actually contribute. While it is understandable that it's all very emotional, posts written in affect are probably not going to be the most constructive ones.

Last edited on 27 Oct 2021 11:47 by Nils Severin Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Gekkoguy 18 Oct 2021 22:20

I assume you are referring to the use of these terms as a whole within the community, as limeyy only referred to it as the "great seal incident" within the thread. while i understand how you can see the language used as being aggressive, it does not reflect the general use of these names for the incident thus far. Since it occurred it has been referred to as the "cerastes" incident, and i believe the use of "great seal" is in the same boat. This is the generally agreed upon terminology, used by both those involved and the general userbase, and while i see where your concerns are coming from the fact remains that your reading is not a reading that is shared by everyone.

---

PM about tabletop wargames

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Nils Severin 22 Oct 2021 13:00

wikidot eats

Last edited on 27 Oct 2021 11:48 by Nils Severin Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Cyvstvi 19 Oct 2021 22:31

[BLANK]

Last edited on 19 Oct 2021 22:34 by Cyvstvi Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Dr Balthazaar 26 Oct 2021 13:23

I know this feels belated but I've just now had a chance to collect my thoughts and managed to feel at least somewhat safe about posting this. (Something that took no small effort to overcome). Note that I hate drama and politics and usually strive to avoid it as much as humanly possible, but I feel I must speak my piece here. It isn’t my intention to upset or offend anyone with this statement, I just want things to be fair and civil.

The majority of posters in the thread are coming off as being very vehement and aggressive, with a clear agenda that resembles a witch hunt. A good portion of the thread is made up of the same accusations, saber-rattling, conjecture, circular arguments and overall mentality of 'guilty until proven innocent' that have pervaded staff discussions over the last several months.

The same opinions and grudges I’ve seen in places like SCPD that have been there for months, if not years, are popping back up in official staff discourse, where they don’t belong. There are displays of agenda-serving rhetoric towards several users who have been harassed for months on end by a group who is unapologetic for the distress they are causing, justifying it as them fighting against a 'corrupt institution' and claiming to represent the entire community when that is not, and cannot be the case.

Those on the thread who are being belligerent seem to not understand, or want to understand, that this behavior intimidates people. I have been extremely nervous to engage in this discussion at all for this exact reason, and on numerous occasions in the past have decided to and even been urged by friends to hold my tongue for fear of retribution from them. In particular, Rounderhouse is highly influential in the community, as an admin on the Wanderer's Library, winner of the SCP-6000 contest, and a highly-rated author overall, his word carries significant weight among his fans. Rounder is also among the most aggressive individuals in the thread, using appeals to emotion disguised as logical reasoning to pursue agendas seen on SCPD, chief of which seems to be giving increasing amounts of power to junior and operational staff (i.e. Many of the posters on the thread) while simultaneously weakening the position of more experienced staff members to the point where they cannot effectively perform their duties.

Further, the repeated claim of viewpoints belonging to a number of those posting as being synonymous with the entire SCP community are untrue and counter-productive—these are viewpoints held by a small clique who are largely based in SCPD, several of whom are also moderators or operators in that server. Most of the community doesn't even know about this circus show; how many off-site places do you think will have any idea what you're talking about, if you turn up and ask them their opinion about this? And those of us who do know just want this to end, and don’t care about personal revenges.

Frankly, this is less a civilized discussion and more one side using grossly-inflated numbers, aggressive rhetoric, and sheer stubbornness to pressure the other side into doing what they want. Instead of proceeding the way things have thus far, please let's just try and remain civil, fair and on topic.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

OptimisticLucio 26 Oct 2021 14:06

This.. doesn't actually say much, does it? Even thought this is a fairly long post, all it properly says is "the majority of posters here are: aggressive, biased¹, not making sense², stubborn, emotional³, and liars⁴. They're almost all from SCPD and part of the same group⁵ and their flavor of discussion does not belong here⁶. "

There's some parts which you can discuss - such as the influence of people in this discussion incentivizing or deincentivizing discussion - but a majority of your post is the exact type of "appeals to emotion disguised as logical reasoning" which you claim to be against.

If you want to discuss stuff like if the offsite cares about this whole ordeal or if SCPD is a toxic server, feel free to explain and show why, but the majority of this comment does nothing but push people's preexisting opinions further in whatever direction they already were.

Footnotes

1. "The majority of posters in the thread are coming off as being very vehement and aggressive, with a clear agenda that resembles a witch hunt."

2. "using appeals to emotion disguised as logical reasoning to pursue agendas"

3. "Frankly, this is less a civilized discussion and more one side using grossly-inflated numbers, aggressive rhetoric, and sheer stubbornness to pressure the other side into doing what they want."

4. "A good portion of the thread is made up of the same accusations, saber-rattling, conjecture, circular arguments"

5. "these are viewpoints held by a small clique who are largely based in SCPD, several of whom are also moderators or operators in that server."

6. "The same opinions and grudges I’ve seen in places like SCPD that have been there for months, if not years, are popping back up in official staff discourse, where they don’t belong."

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ihp 26 Oct 2021 17:40

the majority of this comment does nothing but push people's preexisting opinions further in whatever direction they already were.

So… this is essentially doing what every comment in this discussion, both on this site and on O5, is doing already. Can you really fault him for that?

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 26 Oct 2021 17:46

Sure, because this comment specifically seeks to critique other comments for this flaw. There is, interminably, a difference between "making x fallacy while commenting" and "making x fallacy while criticizing others for making x fallacy".

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Dr Balthazaar 27 Oct 2021 02:56

I'm sorry if I upset you, this was not my intent. What I was trying to say was that the discussion in the thread had spiralled out of control and that it was upsetting to see and to plead for people to please just stay civil, fair and on topic. I never called SCPD toxic, nor insinuated it. I wouldn't be in there if I thought it was. I was pointing out that pretty much everyone in the thread are the same people always saying the same as the thread in meta discussion of scpd, and that it wasn't the purpose of the thread.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 26 Oct 2021 16:56

increasing amounts of power to junior and operational staff

weakening the position of more experienced staff members

Making staff less top-heavy should be the goal. Staff is a mechanism by which tasks are accomplished, not a hierarchy that some individuals on top get to enjoy.

Upper staff are no less capable of doing their jobs now as they were before - they're just less capable of abusing those positions now, and conflating those two is dangerous and should be avoided.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Dr Balthazaar 27 Oct 2021 02:49

What i meant by this was that this is not the place for that and accomplishing nothing. I was trying to say that thats what theyre talking about when the thread is supposed to be about the censureship. I am sorry if I miscommunication that, and I hate all this infighting

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 27 Oct 2021 12:05

Censureship is about that, to a certain extent. It's about limiting the ability of senior staff to abuse authority by holding those users accountable - whether that be through censureship, or demotion, or disciplinary action, etc. It's a legitimate conversation to have, I think.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ihp 26 Oct 2021 17:36

I couldn't have said this better myself.

Despite my attempts to engage with some of the posters here in good faith, the fact is that the vast majority of them are acting like a bunch of bullies, and are refusing to give any quarter to those who they are openly attacking.

The fact that they have the backing of some of the most influential users on the site only serves to further intimidate staff into being incapable of doing their jobs. Every action that has been taken by this clique has served to make this site a less safe, accessible, and harmonious place— disc and AHT are being made incapable of doing their jobs due to 'optics', tech team's decision to do change site navigation was largely instigated by the new generation of staff, and the baffling allegations of conspiracies among staff over something as simple as a damn change in network staff is a clear intimidation tactic.

RE: Why SCPD is a toxic server… it's because of the moderation, full stop. Like Balth said, a lot of this is being instigated by people on SCPD, a lot of whom are part of the mod team. They've been complicit in the harassment of other users in the server, on Twitter, and on the site, some of whom are no longer staff due to them being sick of this exact treatment, for at least half a year at this point. They did nothing to stop vehement bad-faith arguments from breaking out on an almost daily basis, and even added to the fire on several occasions.

Overall, I'm sick of being civil with people who keep harassing those I care about. I'm sick of this kind of behavior being allowed on O5, I'm sick of the leakers, I'm sick of people who are trying to stonewall any actual attempts at reform or moving past this, and I'm especially sick of a small group of people making the entire site thinking they're some kind of Vox Populi, when the populi largely want them to not say anything. Upper staff needs to put their foot down and curb this kind of behavior before it completely debases the site.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 17:40 by Ihp Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

PlaguePJP 26 Oct 2021 17:49

Why SCPD is a toxic server… it's because of the moderation, full stop. Like Balth said, a lot of this is being instigated by people on SCPD, a lot of whom are part of the mod team. They've been complicit in the harassment of other users in the server, on Twitter, and on the site, some of whom are no longer staff due to them being sick of this exact treatment, for at least half a year at this point. They did nothing to stop vehement bad-faith arguments from breaking out on an almost daily basis, and even added to the fire on several occasions.

This is a complete mischaracterization of the server and it’s moderation team. You’ve been approached numerous times about solving the issues yet you still spout this same rant about the mod team being bad because your friends were held accountable for the things they did.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 17:50 by PlaguePJP Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ihp 26 Oct 2021 17:52

I've been approached by them, and all I got was stonewalling by those in charge. And people can 'be held accountable' without giving them anxiety attacks, stress nightmares, and giving them the feeling that they are constantly under attack.

If wanting my friends to be treated with respect makes me some kind of damn bootlicker, then so be it.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

PlaguePJP 26 Oct 2021 18:07

I've been approached by them, and all I got was stonewalling by those in charge.

I’m a full mod on SCPD. You can approach me. I’m a reasonable fella. That being said, the mod team received the discussions you had with some of them, however no solutions were presented, instead it was more of the similar rhetoric you spout here along with comments on rounderhouse and djkaktus.

And people can 'be held accountable' without giving them anxiety attacks, stress nightmares, and giving them the feeling that they are constantly under attack.

I’m sure having people being upset with you is scary, but when you don’t take accountability and continually obfuscate, backpedal, and ignore the userbase, of course those people are going to get even more upset. There was an easy solution right there: realize you messed up and no one would be upset at you.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:10 by PlaguePJP Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 26 Oct 2021 18:13

but when you don’t take accountability and continually obfuscate, backpedal, and ignore the userbase, of course those people are going to get even more upset.

I think this is really what it's about. The work that has been done recently to impose some level of accountability and improve transparency has been really, really great. I think we're in a really great spot right now - staff is right on the cusp of becoming a more efficient, more thoughtfully established group that can better suit the needs of a growing community, which was accomplished by holding some of its less functional elements accountable and making its processes more easily accessible by the community as a whole.

I am really very excited to see how staff continues to evolve now that the wheels are in motion. This is an exciting time to be here!

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

J Dune 26 Oct 2021 18:11

I genuinely did make an attempt to communicate with you from a place of good faith regarding SCPD's moderation team, IHP. I was used for 3 hours as a receptical to be shouted at about problems I could not fix, such as incidents that happened in #meta prior to me becoming a mod and general anecdotes regarding grudges between users and staff that are way, way beyond the scale of the mod team to fix. I wouldn't call that stonewalling. The one actionable thing you mentioned to me, increasing moderation in the meta discussion channel, was happening and continues to happen. If you have any other concrete suggestions on ways to improve SCPD's moderation that don't use the words 'rounderhouse' or 'djkaktus', I'm open to hearing them.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 26 Oct 2021 18:14

that don't use the words 'rounderhouse' or 'djkaktus'

Stop, I'm blushing!

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

stormbreath 26 Oct 2021 17:50

tech team's decision to do change site navigation was largely instigated by the new generation of staff

For starters this wasn't performed by the Tech Team — it was entirely a MAST operation — but secondly the project was helmed by some newer staffers, but it wasn't started by them: plans to revise the top and side bar have been in motion since the inception of staff, and were in fact first instigated by Harmony. (To be clear, I'm not using her as a scapegoat here as often happens — I fully support the nav changes and it was both within her rights and good for the site to instigate changes to site navigation.)

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

OptimisticLucio 26 Oct 2021 17:54

tech team's decision to do change site navigation was largely instigated by the new generation of staff…

Ok as the guy who got the redesign through

1. It wasn't tech team, it was MAST.

2. No it wasn't, because…

3. This is a redesign that's so goddamn long in the making that harmony took part in one of its revisions. If you wanna call her a new staffer, go wild.

I'd appreciate you not pulling information out of your ass just to lash out at people who you're angry at.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

cybersqyd 26 Oct 2021 17:57

I don't really have much to add beyond seconding everything ihp and balthazar have said so far.

I wonder whether anyone here has considered whether the enviroment of paranoia and suspicion they're creating — both between staff and the userbase, and amongst staff as as whole — is healthy for anyone, including themselves. I know that if I personally had to interact with SCPD, I would not want to join the site, and I would not be surprised if this response to that toxicity applied to a lot of other people too.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

PlaguePJP 26 Oct 2021 18:23

SCPD users have been responsible for the majority of the articles posted in the last 3 months at the least. Many users come into the server having not written anything ever and become authors after interacting with the server and it’s users.

I would not want to join the site, and I would not be surprised if this response to that toxicity applied to a lot of other people too.

The server isn’t toxic. If that’s your interpretation having never interacted with it, I don’t know what to tell you. Youre more than welcome to join today and see for yourself. If you’re worried about being targeted, I will make sure that won’t happen. I come from a place of wanting to heal these wounds. If you don’t want to take me up on my offer you don’t have to, and I don’t blame you. Just know it’s not a place actively looking to harm anyone.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

cybersqyd 26 Oct 2021 18:27

If you’re worried about being targeted, I will make sure that won’t happen.

This is the funniest fucking thing I've ever heard on this site thanks for sharing this.

Considering I know multiple people who have been driven out of the site, SCPD and/or staff due to being targetted in SCPD, often by people in this very thread, I have absolutely 0 faith in this being true.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

PlaguePJP 26 Oct 2021 18:36

This was irresponsible. I apologize for the lapse of judgment.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:53 by PlaguePJP Show more

Staff Post: Open

LadyKatie 26 Oct 2021 18:59

No more personal attacks, this is adding nothing to the conversation. If you feel you have been harrassed, you can take it to any member of AHT and we will investigate and act to the best of our abilities. I need both of you to take this back a few levels and remember to stay on topic.

This post is open, you may reply.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

J Dune 26 Oct 2021 18:41

I can also vouch that you would not be targeted or "harassed" in SCPD. It's as simple as that. It's ultimately your choice to decide whether or not you want to participate in that community, and your right to hold whatever perceptions of it you do, regardless of how true they are. But I can say with certainty that you would not be driven away from SCPD by its users.

Also, if you have information regarding people being targeted in SCPD, feel free to let me know. It's not something we condone, and I can promise you that an SCPD user harassing another user would absolutely be met with swift action

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:41 by J Dune Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

cybersqyd 27 Oct 2021 19:49

It's not something we condone, and I can promise you that an SCPD user harassing another user would absolutely be met with swift action

Yeah, I've seen considering one of the bigger perpetraters swiftly got made an SCPD mod

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Gekkoguy 28 Oct 2021 06:11

I'm a little confused by what you mean here. Could you please elaborate?

---

PM about tabletop wargames

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

carolynn ivy 26 Oct 2021 18:30

This whole diatribe is largely tangential to the topic at hand? but while we're here:

You are positioning yourself as a spokesperson of a silent majority—a vox populi as you put it—which is exactly the behavior you are accusing others of. Obviously there is no way for any one party to perfectly gauge community desires, especially in a community as disjointed as this. Every person describing or trying to describe the community is of course doing so from their perspective and only with the observational or democratic tools available to them. This much should be obvious. Of course no understanding of community is perfect.

The response to others trying to gauge community desires should not be then to say "actually, I know what the silent majority wants, and it's for you to shut up!" The goal should be to implement democratizing measures to enable greater community input and better gauge how to reflect community desires and ideas in staff action. This is what these staffers have been doing; not trying to claim perfect knowledge of community desire or attitude, but trying to introduce more tools and measures (like town hall threads, like the recap team, like these community mirror discussions, like greater accountability for high-ranking staffers) to better the connection between community and staff.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 26 Oct 2021 17:41

addressing any of the statements here would be pointless given that there is an underlying accusation of me in there that would make any long response to every point seem illegitimate or disingenous. so instead i'm going to just address that singular one and once that's cleared up i'll make a seperate post with the rest.

In particular, Rounderhouse is highly influential in the community, as an admin on the Wanderer's Library, winner of the SCP-6000 contest, and a highly-rated author overal

These are all true, but there's no actual line of logic from "ROUNDERHOUSE is big on SCP" to "ROUNDERHOUSE would use that bigness for retribution if i speak out". One is a capacity to do it, and one is the assumption that I would do it given the opportunity. I'm not sure what's led to the latter, because as far as I know I've never ordered "retribution" (whatever that entails) on anyone who disagreed with me on staff matters - I've argued with them, of course, as is my right, as is your right too!

his word carries significant weight among his fans.

If people agree with me and say as much - is it my fault that people find my positions easy to rally around? Is that something I have a moral obligation to change? And for those people — should they stop vocalizing their opinions because someone else has already said it?

Rounder is also among the most aggressive individuals in the thread, using appeals to emotion disguised as logical reasoning to pursue agendas seen on SCPD

There's a couple things in there so I'm going to address them sequentially:
1) I wouldn't say I'm the most aggressive in this particular thread but broadly you're right, I'm typically the most aggressive in staff discussions. But all aggression is a pattern of forceful assertiveness — something I think is dearly required in a staff structure that has basically allowed hand-wringing community problems away to become the norm. Perhaps something people find disagreeable, which is their right!

2) I don't think I've ever mixed my logical reasoning with any emotional appeals - which, curiously, still isn't what you accuse me of. You used the word "disguise" — that betrays a certain assumption of bad faith, that I'm intentionally hiding my arguments so that people can't address them. Could you point out any of my statements (in this thread, since that's what we're discussing) where I do that?

3) While many would like to ignore this, SCPD's membership accounts for over two-thirds of author credits on SCPs and Tales posted in October so far. Over 60%! With the slow decline of membership in 19, SCPD has emerged as the central author-reader hub in the past year or so. The idea that the positions many of the regular users hold can be reduced to an 'agenda' is as disingenous as calling your post 'agenda-pushing' — they're just opinions, something every user has a right to.

chief of which seems to be giving increasing amounts of power to junior and operational staff (i.e. Many of the posters on the thread) while simultaneously weakening the position of more experienced staff members to the point where they cannot effectively perform their duties.

I'm definitely a proponent of diluting power downward from the highly-hierarchical pyramid structure on staff right now. Until extremely recently admins and mods had carte blanche to end discussions in staffchat, admins could (and technically still can) fiat veto policies they personally think are harmful, and similar behaviours that inherently stifle discussion.

Staff's structure facilitates this - privilege and trust flow upward while work flows downward. As such, these 'lower staffers' are usually the ones doing the mass of the work, and the idea that their opinions are worth less than mods for no reason other than they're mods (promotions are not a signifier for anything other than the ability to be put up for and pass promos) is ridiculous.

I'd also question where the idea that 'higher staff' (not necessarily equivalent with experienced) have been weakened to the point they can't do their jobs come from. I'm in staffchat, and the only teams I've seen struggling are the IRC team which has been largely amended by the new network ops. Tech still gets stylesheet changes and tag approvals done, CO is still running site news and contests, Recap is recapping, Forum crit is still handling the forums and Disc threads are still coming through and being ruled on. What exactly are the duties not being done, and what have I done to cause this?

---

This is a lot of text but I'd hope it's a good explanation of why I take such severe issue with your framing of me as a vehement actor who has destroyed the ability of senior staff to do their jobs (jobs that are mostly handled by lower staff anyway) who exacts retribution on anyone who disagrees with him (something I don't believe I've done).

I'm also acutely aware that this response could, feasibly, be perceived as me being defensive and given some people have already replied, retributive. But would we expect anyone else to lay down and accept a criticism of their character? I'm damned by my position - I either have to allow criticisms of my character to pass unchallenged, or risk coming across as douchey because I'm doing the same thing anyone else would do. Much like your first point, my actions are interpreted differently by others because of my informal standing in the community — is this my fault?

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 17:48 by Rounderhouse Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Dr Balthazaar 27 Oct 2021 03:14

Thank you for your reply. I do apologise if I offended or upset you. That's the last thing I wanted to do. I fear that I have mistyped elements of my post here. It was not intended as an attack, but rather to attempt to explain that I and others I know find you intimidating, something that I am unsure you were aware of. You pursue your views really relentlessly and speak your mind very directly, and honestly it can be scary. Multiple users have told me to be careful around you, and while I don't know the history there, it was enough to make me nervous. That was what I meant by retribution. I want to make clear I was not trying to attack your character.
As for the majority of the rest of your reply, much of it boils down to me reading the discussion in the thread as basically being very off topic in a really aggressive appearing way. As for my views on scpd, you can see one of my other replies here as I'm typing from my phone.
Again, I want to be very clear. I have no desire to offend, upset, or start fights. I care very very much about the feelings of others, and seeing the fallout of this is truly awful.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Gekkoguy 27 Oct 2021 06:42

Regardless of your intentions, thats the way your message read. I thought you legitimately had a bone to pick with rounder.

---

PM about tabletop wargames

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 27 Oct 2021 08:01

If the goal was to explain why people find me intimidating, yeah, you might've missed the mark a little. Which is fine! Miscommunications aren't anything that deserve fault, and not everyone is used to compiling arguments. But the practical result is that you didn't actually say anything about why people find me intimidating beyond my resume in the community (not something I can change - should I?) and my relentlessness, you just made a character attack. Which, I do pursue my views, relentlessly and perhaps aggressively. I have been criticized for this before, on and off staff. Which people more than have a right to do - but in the same way, I also have a right to criticize staff to facilitate what I think is positive, necessary change.

The perception of me as retributive and intimidating doesn't seem rooted in anything except hearsay and secondhand opinions - I'm not gonna ask you to do anything, obviously, but if those multiple users could point to any incidents where I've laid some theoretical retribution on anyone for any perceived offenses, I'd be surprised. I'm intense, I'm dogged - I'm not vindictive. If my doggedness is being conflated with vindictiveness — am I supposed to not make myself heard because some people are irrationally afraid of me? That doesn't seem very fair to anyone - to silence myself because of what other people think, something that many people were afraid would happen to staff after all the transparency initiatives.

reading the discussion in the thread as basically being very off topic in a really aggressive appearing way.

This is fair, you're welcome to read it however. I don't think it's gotten aggressive, just intense - there's no heat. I trust Moose, I'm not worried about any hard feelings spawning from this thread. I obviously can't account for anyone who chose not to comment, of course, so theorizing on them is pointless. But I think the discussion is extremely on-topic - moose, lucio, gee, limeyy, bleep, all have been exchanging very valid and relevant points to Staff disciplinary policy and the censure. But of course, subjective.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

MalyceGraves 26 Oct 2021 23:40

In response to this I see a lot of "no you're wrong" and very little "I hear/see/read a legitimate concern by a long-standing member of the site, how can we engage in a constructive way?"

This is the same type of toxicity that eventually consumes just about every community on the internet, and I'm sad to see it here. Sad, but not surprised.

It is clear that any criticism I would wish to add will be dogpiled and ultimately ignored. So I will simply say that I am sorry to see that it has come to this and to add support to what ihp and Balth have already said. Engaging further seems fruitless.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 27 Oct 2021 00:01

In response to this I see a lot of "no you're wrong" and very little "I hear/see/read a legitimate concern by a long-standing member of the site, how can we engage in a constructive way?"

This seems somewhat disingenuous, I feel, considering that the reply immediately above yours is an eleven paragraph, in-depth response from the person being most directly criticized.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

LadyKatie 27 Oct 2021 03:12

Coming in as AHT, if you feel Harrassment has happened, please please please contact us, we will begin looking into it as soon as we have evidence.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Djoric 26 Oct 2021 18:21

All right whippersnappers, lemme tell you a story.

This is the same bitter infighting I was neck-deep in back in 2012 (time is a flat circle, folks) and it's like I never left. Pages and pages and pages upon pages of textblocks arguing over the most granular bureaucratic details you ever did see. I can barely make heads or tails of the threads linked above and I wouldn't be surprised if no one else can either. That's always a good sign (it is not.)

But, I gotta say, after you live through it once you can get a smell for when someone's got a chip on their shoulder and trying to be a bully. I should know, because that was me. Hell I was demoted from staff because I orchestrated a downvote brigade as part of a stupid one-sided rivalry with Clef (ye gods was that stupid). I wasted years screaming about how staff was a corrupt old boys club fossilized in their ways, on and on, and it was all bullshit that cost me both friends and my mental health.

I know this song and dance. The words change but the tune stays the same.

Some staff members fucked up. They made public apology, to the point of self-demotion for one and intent to file self-demotion for the other two. That, I think, is more than sufficient, and I don't trust the currents of dragging this out longer than it needs to, looking for a crucifixion. I know how that goes.

So if it wasn't clear, I'm going to echo Ihp and Bathazaar. I'm well out of the loop and operating on vibes, but the vibes, my dudes, dudessas and dudenbies are not good.

e: The fact that there is a discord operating like an autonomous region also seems like a recipe for furthered bad vibes. The lack of an official one confuses me, and the situation strikes me as one of the multiple separatist movements on this site of recent years.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:28 by Djoric Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 26 Oct 2021 18:27

Not to criticize, but a couple of things:

Some staff members fucked up. They made public apology

Some did, but the one who self-demoted did not.

looking for a crucifixion

Nobody is looking for a crucifixion, I think. Just appropriate accountability for abuses, etc.

I'm well out of the loop and operating on vibes

Yeah, this is pretty evident. Having been pretty well acquainted with your stuff from ages ago and this stuff now, they don't really have anything in common. I would consider where you're probably hearing this from, as a start.

e:

e: The fact that there is a discord operating like an autonomous region also seems like a recipe for furthered bad vibes.

It's a discord for a subreddit. It's not really an autonomous region.

The lack of an official one confuses me

It's because staff has refused to get away from IRC for years. They have an official discord in the works that should be opening before too long.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:45 by djkaktus Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

J Dune 26 Oct 2021 18:36

With all due respect, Djoric, You have absolutely zero context for the current climate of the wiki and its users, and pretending that it's the same site, argument, or even remotely similar to whatever you got up to with Clef and the rest of your crew is reductionist. It's really strange that you'd show up in this thread at all after such a long period of inactivity, now that I'm thinking about it.

Some staff members fucked up. They made public apology, to the point of self-demotion for one and intent to file self-demotion for the other two. That, I think, is more than sufficient, and I don't trust the currents of dragging this out longer than it needs to, looking for a crucifixion. I know how that goes.

I'm more than happy to agree with you on this, but coming into this thread under the assumption of bad faith and blindly agreeing with users on a situation you couldn't be less cognizant of if you tried is a pretty bad "vibe" too. Actually, I agree with you a lot on this discussion being largely inaccessible to people not 'in the loop', and it's definitely a bad thing, but that cat's out of the bag. Jumping in to make a few statements that aren't saying anything other than "This is similar to how it used to be." when it really isn't is giving me the indication that you're attempting to sway folks through seniority or clout. What happened in 2012 is entirely alien to what's happening right now.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:37 by J Dune Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Athenodora 27 Oct 2021 04:16

Question: why do you think that Djoric has "absolutely zero context for the current climate of the wiki and its users"? I feel like there's some context to this conversation I'm missing here.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 26 Oct 2021 18:53

e: The fact that there is a discord operating like an autonomous region also seems like a recipe for furthered bad vibes. The lack of an official one confuses me, and the situation strikes me as one of the multiple separatist movements on this site of recent years.

This betrays such a fundamental misunderstanding of how the site and community function in recent years I'm not sure where to address it from. "Autonomous region" — should staff roll in and lay down the law? Do we do that to all SCP discord servers (of which there are literally hundreds) or only the ones we perceive as important? Comparing a fan discord that's become an author hub to 'separatist movements' (i can only assume you're referring to CI or RPC) is also just utterly unfair.

Last edited on 26 Oct 2021 18:54 by Rounderhouse Show more

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

djkaktus 26 Oct 2021 18:54

Comparing a fan discord that's become an author hub to 'separatist movements' (i can only assume you're referring to CI or RPC) is also just utterly bizarre.

And pretty irresponsible in general, tbh. This is kind of a disappointing response.

Operational Staff Post OPEN

OccultistMave 26 Oct 2021 18:36

Alright everyone, I understand completely that this is a topic people are passionate about, but we need to remember to keep discussions civil. Make sure your points can be heard over any strong emotions you may feel.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

A Random Day 27 Oct 2021 00:46

This thread has devolved into people arguing about if SCPD is actually toxic when that's besides the damn point. Dexanote and Mann should censure themselves A) because more meaningful change from both a policy AND culture standpoint is currently happening and B) they need the vacation. It is an entirely symbolic punishment at this point, so pick a duration for them and let's move on to every other more important topic of site policy in flux right now.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Ethagon 27 Oct 2021 08:22

Agreed.

Re: [Discussion] [Discussion] Joint Statement re: Miscommunication and On Censure

Rounderhouse 28 Oct 2021 18:21

It does suck that the thread got somewhat derailed. I don't necessarily agree with that specific reasoning but yeah. But no censure discussions are going to begin until the disciplinary policy is reassessed, which is at least 2 weeks from now, so I guess we wait.

Duration wise, I'm of the opinion that 3 months is fine for Dex, and Mann hasn't done anything to warrant a censure.