A Letter to the Moderation, and a Defense of Wynn.

[Armadox]

Spoiler: bluegate's EscapistPlus - Add-On

I appreciate the gesture. The problem is that I'm horrible at remembering usernames, to the point where I rely on avatars to recognize folks around here. Besides, I find most avatars to be benign or amusing, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of one bad apple.

I will respond to the others of which have posted as soon as I can. It was Halloween and I took my daughter out to get candy. I have, many things I'd like to express. But to you, Neverhoodian, I've had this avatar for a very, very long time. It breaks no rules. I am sorry you are offended by the existence of tongue ring holes and red food coloring. But if I am a bad apple merely for my taste in art, well I find that a discredit to my message that your sense of self importance is such that you'd ignore what I am on about merely because you dislike my avatar. The palatablity of my avatar is mere distraction from the topic at hand, and shouldn't be for you to determine. Please would you kindly find it in you to not attack me on such a personal front for no reason other then you wish to be dismissive.

 

[lacktheknack]

I will respond to the others of which have posted as soon as I can. It was Halloween and I took my daughter out to get candy. I have, many things I'd like to express. But to you, Neverhoodian, I've had this avatar for a very, very long time. It breaks no rules. I am sorry you are offended by the existence of tongue ring holes and red food coloring. But if I am a bad apple merely for my taste in art, well I find that a discredit to my message that your sense of self importance is such that you'd ignore what I am on about merely because you dislike my avatar. The palatablity of my avatar is mere distraction from the topic at hand, and shouldn't be for you to determine. Please would you kindly find it in you to not attack me on such a personal front for no reason other then you wish to be dismissive.

"Eugh, that Avatar makes me personally uncomfortable."

"This is a personal attack!"

Man, moderating these forums sounds like more of a chore daily.

 

[Saelune]

Spoiler: bluegate's EscapistPlus - Add-On

I appreciate the gesture. The problem is that I'm horrible at remembering usernames, to the point where I rely on avatars to recognize folks around here. Besides, I find most avatars to be benign or amusing, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of one bad apple.

I will respond to the others of which have posted as soon as I can. It was Halloween and I took my daughter out to get candy. I have, many things I'd like to express. But to you, Neverhoodian, I've had this avatar for a very, very long time. It breaks no rules. I am sorry you are offended by the existence of tongue ring holes and red food coloring. But if I am a bad apple merely for my taste in art, well I find that a discredit to my message that your sense of self importance is such that you'd ignore what I am on about merely because you dislike my avatar. The palatablity of my avatar is mere distraction from the topic at hand, and shouldn't be for you to determine. Please would you kindly find it in you to not attack me on such a personal front for no reason other then you wish to be dismissive.

Uh, you have a gross avatar. I dont think you should be forced to change it, but dont pretend it isnt a gross avatar.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Is the userbase so wanting for a fight with the mods it'll defend Epyc Wynn?

Dude was mercilessly annoying and proud of it. He would also incessantly advocate for piracy and rallying against the mods, which would have resulted in the same treatment for anybody. There's a reason he has been banned from so many sites. The fact he lasted as long as he did is evidence of leniency, not strictness.

 

[Dr.Susse]

It should be said to users worried that the mods will take away a persons Publisher club access just because we don't like them, we won't. This was a situation not to be used as any precedent because it wasn't a regular situation. Users have always discussed their grievances with us, just like in this thread.

But Wynn took every conversation he could, with moderators and staff, to call us corrupt; to say we were repressive of free speech and then rant and rave without ever discussing the actual problem. We didn't secretly connive to ban him and I think we were a lot more patient than the couple of other websites that have have also banned this same person.

Also if User has paid for the Publisher club we never will revoke it, it's not an option.

This is just a small forum now not a conspiracy.
We should try and get along, because it won't be here forever and it's your choice whether you'll remember it fondly or not.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I will respond to the others of which have posted as soon as I can. It was Halloween and I took my daughter out to get candy. I have, many things I'd like to express. But to you, Neverhoodian, I've had this avatar for a very, very long time. It breaks no rules. I am sorry you are offended by the existence of tongue ring holes and red food coloring. But if I am a bad apple merely for my taste in art, well I find that a discredit to my message that your sense of self importance is such that you'd ignore what I am on about merely because you dislike my avatar. The palatablity of my avatar is mere distraction from the topic at hand, and shouldn't be for you to determine. Please would you kindly find it in you to not attack me on such a personal front for no reason other then you wish to be dismissive.

The kettle calling the pot black...

OT:
So drama for drama's sake.

 

[Fox12]

If you really cared about the site, you'd spend less time making these threads, and more time streamlining your thoughts so moderators could read through them quickly.

...

If you really want change, I'm happy for you, but public spectacles aren't the way to do it. They only ever waste time.

...

if you want to put up long-winded wanted posters about the moderation and administration under the veil of wanting "communication," then the only thing that you'll create for us is staff hours spent on nothing--time we'll never get back and a community that will feel empowered to keep demanding. If you want a moderation team that listens to you, think about the ramifications of your tone, structure, and argument. Make it as easy for us as possible so we can actually do stuff with it without long internal conversations and deviations

...

Whatever you want, there are countless better ways to do it.

It's a relief to know how much value the staff place on the community

I streamlined the post so you can read the highlights.

Now, instead of wasting yet more of my time by having to revisit the same topics, here are some more productive things you could be doing:

Check in with the community you're concerned for. You'll notice so many in this thread feel like this is unnecessary bloviating. Acknowledge that even if you disagree, this is the community too. I'm not here just for you, these are the community too. They likewise deserve my time, and threads like these take that away from them.

Concentrate your efforts. Pretending there's some magic "Do x, get praise" answer to complex moderation issues is, at best, condescending. You aren't doing anything by trying to score cheap shot points while feeling like it's making "a point." Instead, focus you energies into narrowing down your whys. Why do you feel like exacting, specific rules will be "better." Why are you so interested in other persons' bans? Figure out whatever x factor you think these details will solve for you, then come forward with that. "Because it's just better." isn't a reason we can work with.

Care. Right now, your snideness makes it seem like you don't really care, you just want to be validated and proven right. Good for you, but no one here cares but you and people who also want the same validation. However, there are hundreds of other users who all have wants from this forum. There are bots that need wrangling. There are pitches than need answering. Articles that need answering. Community documents to be written. Announcements to be worked on. All of these outside of snippy remarks that put people doing you a favor under you. We're already doing work, all I'm asking is that you pretend to do some too. Scoring points isn't work, and it's not working for anyone.

But why do you assume criticism and caring are mutually exclusive? And why is engaging with the community evidently a waste of your valuable time? How often do you engage with the community outside of responding to criticism? Looking at the criticisms laid forth in this thread, I do not believe anyone was being snippy or snide at all. Critical, yes, but in an attempt to be constructive. While obviously not one of the more enjoyable aspects of your job, engaging with the community sometimes means engaging with criticism. I do not think it is fair to say that critics here are somehow impossible to please. In fact, I quite like the moderation team. I like Tippy, and Redline5. I liked Katherine Kerinsky before she stepped down. No, those who have forwarded complaints have very specific issues that we feel deserve to be addressed, or made clear. They are as follows:

1. Pub club memberships can be removed at will. Under what circumstances do you consider this a proper punishment?
2. Individuals can be banned instantly, regardless of their forum health meter. What circumstances lead to a instant ban, as opposed to an infraction? Are there different circumstances? If not, then what is the purpose of the forum health meter?

These are simply clarifications. I don't dispute the infractions given to either Wynn or American tanker. But I would ask what criteria they met that led to instant bans, as opposed to infractions. Surely a clear understanding of both the rules and punishments is healthy for the smooth running of the community as a whole?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

If you really cared about the site, you'd spend less time making these threads, and more time streamlining your thoughts so moderators could read through them quickly.

...

If you really want change, I'm happy for you, but public spectacles aren't the way to do it. They only ever waste time.

...

if you want to put up long-winded wanted posters about the moderation and administration under the veil of wanting "communication," then the only thing that you'll create for us is staff hours spent on nothing--time we'll never get back and a community that will feel empowered to keep demanding. If you want a moderation team that listens to you, think about the ramifications of your tone, structure, and argument. Make it as easy for us as possible so we can actually do stuff with it without long internal conversations and deviations

...

Whatever you want, there are countless better ways to do it.

It's a relief to know how much value the staff place on the community

I streamlined the post so you can read the highlights.

Now, instead of wasting yet more of my time by having to revisit the same topics, here are some more productive things you could be doing:

Check in with the community you're concerned for. You'll notice so many in this thread feel like this is unnecessary bloviating. Acknowledge that even if you disagree, this is the community too. I'm not here just for you, these are the community too. They likewise deserve my time, and threads like these take that away from them.

Concentrate your efforts. Pretending there's some magic "Do x, get praise" answer to complex moderation issues is, at best, condescending. You aren't doing anything by trying to score cheap shot points while feeling like it's making "a point." Instead, focus you energies into narrowing down your whys. Why do you feel like exacting, specific rules will be "better." Why are you so interested in other persons' bans? Figure out whatever x factor you think these details will solve for you, then come forward with that. "Because it's just better." isn't a reason we can work with.

Care. Right now, your snideness makes it seem like you don't really care, you just want to be validated and proven right. Good for you, but no one here cares but you and people who also want the same validation. However, there are hundreds of other users who all have wants from this forum. There are bots that need wrangling. There are pitches than need answering. Articles that need answering. Community documents to be written. Announcements to be worked on. All of these outside of snippy remarks that put people doing you a favor under you. We're already doing work, all I'm asking is that you pretend to do some too. Scoring points isn't work, and it's not working for anyone.

I'm going to answer these individually in an effort to clear things up.

1. Pub club memberships can be removed at will. Under what circumstances do you consider this a proper punishment?

As stated by Dr. Susse in post 85, we don't take people's Pub Club away as a method of punishment, nor do we take them away because we simply don't like a user. Taking Wynn's Pub Club away was under extra-ordinary circumstances as he abused a forum that the Pub Club gave him access to. He also took every opportunity to mock and insult the mods, staff, admins, and even users that do not agree with him, so that was also behind the decision. He did not pay for this access as the Tech Team gave it away, but the decision to take it away was not taken lightly.

We will never take away a user's access to Pub Club, especially if a user paid for it. Wynn was a special case as a better alternative than to lock and edit every thread he's made, i.e. breaking the porn rule, since that would be against the spirit of the Wild West.

2. Individuals can be banned instantly, regardless of their forum health meter. What circumstances lead to a instant ban, as opposed to an infraction? Are there different circumstances? If not, then what is the purpose of the forum health meter?

For a user to be banned instantly, they would have to show a complete and utter lack of respect for the mods, admins, staff, and the user base at large. Meaning, if they continually post aggressive and offensive posts, such is the case for BigBootyAmyRose, then they will be banned regardless of of their meter level.

Keep in mind that instant bans are extreme cases and, again, not just because we simply do not like someone. Discourse is fine and accepted as well as criticism, in the case of this thread and the few others that are around, but if a user would continually go out of their way to disrespect others, even after receiving infractions for their offense, then it would become clear that they have no desire to change and actions will be taken.

The other situation would be that a user would literally be asking the mods for one when we see it in the forums. At that point we would PM that user to see if they are serious.

The purpose behind the health meter is to show the user where they stand with infractions and to, hopefully, indicate to them to be careful if they wish to engage with the community here.

Again, Wynn was an extreme case, our actions towards him should not set a precedent to indicate how we will be dealing with users from here on out.

 

[Fox12]

If you really cared about the site, you'd spend less time making these threads, and more time streamlining your thoughts so moderators could read through them quickly.

...

If you really want change, I'm happy for you, but public spectacles aren't the way to do it. They only ever waste time.

...

if you want to put up long-winded wanted posters about the moderation and administration under the veil of wanting "communication," then the only thing that you'll create for us is staff hours spent on nothing--time we'll never get back and a community that will feel empowered to keep demanding. If you want a moderation team that listens to you, think about the ramifications of your tone, structure, and argument. Make it as easy for us as possible so we can actually do stuff with it without long internal conversations and deviations

...

Whatever you want, there are countless better ways to do it.

It's a relief to know how much value the staff place on the community

I streamlined the post so you can read the highlights.

Now, instead of wasting yet more of my time by having to revisit the same topics, here are some more productive things you could be doing:

Check in with the community you're concerned for. You'll notice so many in this thread feel like this is unnecessary bloviating. Acknowledge that even if you disagree, this is the community too. I'm not here just for you, these are the community too. They likewise deserve my time, and threads like these take that away from them.

Concentrate your efforts. Pretending there's some magic "Do x, get praise" answer to complex moderation issues is, at best, condescending. You aren't doing anything by trying to score cheap shot points while feeling like it's making "a point." Instead, focus you energies into narrowing down your whys. Why do you feel like exacting, specific rules will be "better." Why are you so interested in other persons' bans? Figure out whatever x factor you think these details will solve for you, then come forward with that. "Because it's just better." isn't a reason we can work with.

Care. Right now, your snideness makes it seem like you don't really care, you just want to be validated and proven right. Good for you, but no one here cares but you and people who also want the same validation. However, there are hundreds of other users who all have wants from this forum. There are bots that need wrangling. There are pitches than need answering. Articles that need answering. Community documents to be written. Announcements to be worked on. All of these outside of snippy remarks that put people doing you a favor under you. We're already doing work, all I'm asking is that you pretend to do some too. Scoring points isn't work, and it's not working for anyone.

I'm going to answer these individually in an effort to clear things up.

1. Pub club memberships can be removed at will. Under what circumstances do you consider this a proper punishment?

As stated by Dr. Susse in post 85, we don't take people's Pub Club away as a method of punishment, nor do we take them away because we simply don't like a user. Taking Wynn's Pub Club away was under extra-ordinary circumstances as he abused a forum that the Pub Club gave him access to. He also took every opportunity to mock and insult the mods, staff, admins, and even users that do not agree with him, so that was also behind the decision. He did not pay for this access as the Tech Team gave it away, but the decision to take it away was not taken lightly.

We will never take away a user's access to Pub Club, especially if a user paid for it. Wynn was a special case as a better alternative than to lock and edit every thread he's made, i.e. breaking the porn rule, since that would be against the spirit of the Wild West.

2. Individuals can be banned instantly, regardless of their forum health meter. What circumstances lead to a instant ban, as opposed to an infraction? Are there different circumstances? If not, then what is the purpose of the forum health meter?

For a user to be banned instantly, they would have to show a complete and utter lack of respect for the mods, admins, staff, and the user base at large. Meaning, if they continually post aggressive and offensive posts, such is the case for BigBootyAmyRose, then they will be banned regardless of of their meter level.

Keep in mind that instant bans are extreme cases and, again, not just because we simply do not like someone. Discourse is fine and accepted as well as criticism, in the case of this thread and the few others that are around, but if a user would continually go out of their way to disrespect others, even after receiving infractions for their offense, then it would become clear that they have no desire to change and actions will be taken.

The other situation would be that a user would literally be asking the mods for one when we see it in the forums. At that point we would PM that user to see if they are serious.

The purpose behind the health meter is to show the user where they stand with infractions and to, hopefully, indicate to them to be careful if they wish to engage with the community here.

Again, Wynn was an extreme case, our actions towards him should not set a precedent to indicate how we will be dealing with users from here on out.

Thank you fiz, I appreciate the clarification.

Edit: I also didn't realize you were now a mad. Congratulations.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

He threatened the life of someone in a pony thread for posting ponies.

That was me. I didn't actually find it as a threat, so I was rather surprised he got hit with a warning for it when I looked back at the thread. I could see why though, so... I thought no harm done? It got overturned though, so... eh

 

[dinaverg]

I will respond to the others of which have posted as soon as I can. It was Halloween and I took my daughter out to get candy. I have, many things I'd like to express. But to you, Neverhoodian, I've had this avatar for a very, very long time. It breaks no rules. I am sorry you are offended by the existence of tongue ring holes and red food coloring. But if I am a bad apple merely for my taste in art, well I find that a discredit to my message that your sense of self importance is such that you'd ignore what I am on about merely because you dislike my avatar. The palatablity of my avatar is mere distraction from the topic at hand, and shouldn't be for you to determine. Please would you kindly find it in you to not attack me on such a personal front for no reason other then you wish to be dismissive.

"Eugh, that Avatar makes me personally uncomfortable."

"This is a personal attack!"

Man, moderating these forums sounds like more of a chore daily.

This is exactly and only the kind of person that would be motivated to make a thread like this. They're very good at demonstrating how a mechanistic breakdown of something into chunks so small as to have no meaning contains no individual elements that break any specifically enumerated rules....

And do not simply fail to consider, but are in fact personally affronted(!) by the idea that someone else has had a negative experience because of them.

This, is the kind of person that needs an enumerated and legalistic/technical specification of what 'don't be a dick' means.

 

[runic knight]

For those curious, I do recommend reading the exchanges in the moderation team chat for some further enlightening.

From what I can see about this whole topic, Wynn was upset about a ruling based on the lack of rules of the place he posted frequently and the sudden change to his ability to do so with no clear reason explained. His tone in the mod-team group did show what other users have said here, he was going to hang himself before long. Instead, he was banned, rolled-back and banned from WW, then banned again and somewhere in that timeline, was informed of it by a mod that was later removed.

Something I found noteworthy beside the whole incident though is the tone and unprofessionalism of some of the replies within the mod group and likely elsewhere. There is a very "fuck you, you are only a user, no one cares" tone seen there. It is both embarrassingly petty on its own, to say nothing of it coming from the people who are given power, and completely demonstrative of the sort of attitude people are worried about being the norm. Users will often have an "us versus them" mindset because of their lack of power. Moderation shouldn't embrace it too though.

Add on to this changes to bring back a disgraced mod known for abusing their power for personal vendetta with the excuse they were the only person at that timezone, punishment for transparency of another mod, the general lack of transparency about rules and enforcement that has been a problem for years, and even technical oddities like needing to e-mail directly to get an appeal processed because it seems the timer-system broke (which, good to know personally, was wondering why that wasn't working).

Now, the skeptic in me looks at this as a complete mess by people pushed into a rough position and screwed any way they move. In that I can appreciate the efforts and difficulty even if I find myself strongly disagreeing with many moves as only making things worse. The equivalent of watching someone repair a hole in a ship with a sledgehammer. Sure, you might bend some of the haul back in place, but overall it doesn't seem to be working as intended.

But as someone able to understand where people would react to this emotionally though, this is just terrible. Echoing the emotional reaction to events of those far more upset than myself, you have a lot of things concerning people. Every fear and concern about the worst case scenario of this change seems like it is being grabbed for. You have a controversial new CM (for reasons I don't fully get, some seem upset by the pick or the method of pick), you have users banned for less than clear reasons in a way that deviates from known patterns (that being, the usual post = strike countdown) and amid unusual and questionable applications of rules, you have moderation coming off as petty, unprofessional and vindictively acting in reply to the user, you have the site giving power to a disgraced mod that abused power before, you have a mod that was transparent and who had a reputation of positive contribution to the site itself being completely removed, you have changes to the appeal system that some users aren't even aware of, and you have posts like this OP being met with derision and patronizing to further highlight the disconnect between the ruling party and the users.

Now I want to reiterate again that I am echoing the sentiments of other opinions with that last paragraph and this one and being the messenger here. My sentiments are more toward the middle ground of things than the full bore, but holy crap is it not hard to see why people would. The above presents an appearance of the worse claims about the way the escapist is managed and moderated realized. The actions to wynn has turned him into a martyr to some, and demonstrated his claims and accusations were entirely founded to even more. The full of it has started to kick the hornet's nest again and users will push for change, or leave in drones. The site is weakened, disorganized and would do well to avoid that outcome as much as possible.

I've talked before about my own problems with moderation and management on this site. I personally thought the rules were too unclear and too arbitrarily applied, and the result of that was creating an environment of sniping and shitposting passive aggressively because those were the only posts not given strikes (basic rules of evolution there, and optimal gamer strategy: What works, survives, what doesn't, dies). It fostered the banjumpers antics as the game became about sniping people and baiting replies til they got banned, or til the sock account did and then another account was made to continue it. Since then the rules themselves have become looser and applied less harshly so that problem diminished. I have seen less banjumpers compared to the heyday and less posts hit in general. WW I assume also helped, though having never gotten the membership I would not know what went on in there to make a judgement there.

Regardless if users don't "understanding their place in the pecking order around here", they are the lifeblood of the site and listening to their concerns, understanding where they come from, and understanding how they will respond to actions and changes is a must if you don't want to be a site bereft of users all together.

Wynn was a rabble rouser. He argued and fought with mods. He didn't respect them when talking to them or accept their word or reasoning based on their position's authority. But he also represented the thoughts and opinions of other users and visitors to the site who did not speak. His opinions, concerns and complaints are not unique to him and in part or whole there are others in the community who share them. The confusion and controversy around these events relating to him are observed by them as well. How many users would agree with the way it was handled? Or with other decisions? And how much does the mods or staff care if they do or not? How long does a voluntarily participated in community stick around if they think the people in charge of moderating them do not care at all how they want their community to be run?

 

[StatusNil]

You don't even have to have a personal issue with the mods to be disturbed by how things went down on this site. I assume most of us created our accounts here under the assumption that this was a professional publication, with professionally accountable people in charge of dealing with those accounts. And now it appears that the staff has quietly snuck off without a word to the community, and handed over the keys to basically Internet randos, seemingly accountable to no one at all. Now I liked Joshua Vanderwall and Ron Whitaker just fine, but seriously, you're gonna vanish like that? Neither of them have even posted on damn Twitter for months now. And as for the parent corporation, they are apparently unreachable and nowhere even acknowledge owning this site.

What a giant clusterhug with sinister undertones this turned out to be. And of course I had to be one of the very few suckers trying to financially support The Escapist with the subscription that was subsequently handed out for free to everyone on a permanent basis. Hell, I defended the goddamn Casino ads that keep popping up at the bottom of my screen. Oh well, Countdown to Purge is underway, and I'm not too sad about that at this late a day.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think a few too many people have the kind of mentality where they think it's okay to be rude jackasses to those they think are supposed to be professional. Just to be clear, not saying they are being jackasses but Wynn was and they defend that. It's like the mentality where some think they think it's okay to be able to berate waiters and whatnot. In ideal circumstances the kind of person that ends up on NotAlwaysRight should get booted and banned from the premesis and Wynn was the forum equivalent of those sorts of people. I hate the mentality that expects professional service that is immune to people being rude and awful. It's a reality sometimes but no reason it should he one here.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

I couldn't be bothered to read all that, I only got as far as "elections" However I will say the same thing I brought up on Wynn's declaration. The Escapist is not some sort of nation, it is a privately owned and operated website. It doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing you anything, it has a Code of Conduct which YOU are expected to follow. It is not a democracy and we does't need elections. It has a staff of volunteers trying to hold the site together and all this whining isn't helping.

Like it or loathe it, it's the gospel truth.

As for Epyc Wynn, I tend to agree with the OP in that they were constantly tying a noose around their own neck for which to hang themself; and left to their own devices that surely would have happened. That would be how I would approach things. However, as Canadamus said it's within their right to do what they did as per the code of conduct. Either way, they fucked themselves.

 

[Marik2]

Who was meta master?

 

[RedRockRun]

Why defend him? He's annoying for the sake of being annoying. He's the type to follow around with his hands in your face saying, "I'm not touching you!" only to actually touch you and then move the goalposts to say that he meant he wasn't going to touch you emotionally. I will not press F to pay respects to him.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Can the OP change their avatar to something more palatable first? I'm not overly squeamish or anything, but I'd rather not have to see a human tongue bloodily impaled by a syringe if I can help it. The fact that it's been allowed to stay up for so long indicates to me that the mods are more lenient than the OP believes.

Yeah, Armadox's is the only avatar I have blocked because it's just unpleasant to look at.

 

[tippy2k2]

Who was meta master?

I'm not sure I'm technically allowed to say but it was just a banjumper having an Epyc meltdown.

But like I said, I don't think I'm at liberty to discuss it. You'll just have to peek through my Wynndow when I have the ban list up to see who it was. Sorry I can't say more than that.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

Who was meta master?

I'm not sure I'm technically allowed to say but it was just a banjumper having an Epyc meltdown.

But like I said, I don't think I'm at liberty to discuss it. You'll just have to peek through my Wynndow when I have the ban list up to see who it was. Sorry I can't say more than that.

Smooth.