Member Treatment - Are we being fair to the members of the community?

[Guest_1]

Alright, we've had a good discussion about this so far. That said, let's not make this thread into something it is not. This is an issue that goes back several years, and really, all everybody wants is fair treatment and fair application of the rules. This is about members who are staff on various parts of the site being allowed to break the rules without consequence for their actions. Staff members of all types should not be causing threads to derail. They should also not be inciting flame wars or harrassment of others because they don't share the same beliefs as you do. This goes for everybody, staff or not.

While this thread could in and of itself be regarded as a "punishment" for allowing or being involved in the recent thread derailment to occur, this is not about that either. The recent thread derailment is merely the most recent example of the diplomatic immunity being allowed to carry on when certain staff members participate in threads. If this community is to move forward, if the merger between our communities is to be a success, we need to iron this out now or risk repeating the very same mistakes that have plagued various other administrations in the past.

They say that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. That said, everyone involved in the thread derailment recently made a mistakes, including the staff that were involved. In the interest of fairness, it would not be fair to reprimand just Matt, or Jamie, or even Mases for what happened. Rather, if we are to be fair, all parties involved in the nastiness that went on in that thread should be held accountable, even if they are current or former staff. It would be easy to say this is an isolated incident, but it is not.

I know of many threads, that once certain staff members get involved, spiraled into a vicious cycle of bickering, fingerpointing, ad hominem attacks, strawmen, and other various argumentative fallacies. Why does this cycle have to continue? Why can't we just hold everyone responsible for what they say? We're no different from any other online community. We have rules that must be put in place to protect the members here. If we apply the rules only to some and not to others, that creates an imbalance that just begs to be abused, and for some, this abuse of the system has gone on long enough.

Let's keep up the good work to make this place better, for everyone involved.

I would just like to remind everyone of this.

Also, thank you very much, Nate, for at least probing into this further. Regardless of if anyone believe this is an actual issue or not, I feel that this is a good conversation to have. In fact, in many ways I think we all should have had this conversation sooner. This has been an issue that has cropped up in previous administrations, and it would be a shame for ZD and ZI to go through the merger... just to be hampered by something like this again in the future. This isn't, nor has it ever been, a question of if the staff is bad, nor does this have to do with anything else besides wanting to have fair treatment for all members of this community. It doesn't matter if you are a forum admin, moderator, wiki admin, site staff, what have you, no one should be above the rules.

Again, thank you all for the good work so far.

 

[Jamie]

Mases has straight up told the staff not to punish users for a variety of different reasons, or at the very least held them to different standards, for probably as long as any of us can remember.

 

[Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]

With Mases himself? Not hugely. If you ask him he'll say it never happened. Which more or less is the case since typically he simply doesn't care.

Had a ZI management meeting today that had some forum chatter. Nothing new to really share or report beyond the typical wait and see approach that is going on now (basically, merge is a month away or so, nothing imminent). However, he did admit that he understands where the sentiment for "immunity" comes from. He openly admitted (and likely would to anyone who asks) that he told forum staff not to ban people. He's not exactly hiding that fact, but he did say it wasn't that people couldn't be banned, but there weren't any rules against toxic behavior, so at the heart of it the banning wouldn't be based on rule violations. It's something that he seems to be movable on in adjusting the future of the community long haul, but he always erred on the side of don't ban someone unless they broke rules that call for banning.

So basically, he did tell staff not to ban specific people, but only on grounds they didn't actually break any specific rule that's a bannable offense. Publicly, this obviously looks like favoritism and immunity. It's not really what it is, but it's easily perceived that way when some staff want to ban and Mases says no.

Just filling you and everyone else in. Mases knows where that rep comes from and he understands it because he was blocking bans, but did so with a bit of logic behind it. Mases has openly admitted he's not the greatest of communicators - which sucks of course when your at the top. But that's sort of why he has Jimmy here, myself at ZI, etc. That way he can sort of talk through us where we can deliver the messages he wants in a better way at times.

So yes, he's blocked bans, but it wasn't exactly immunity.

And the side that is demanding action assumes he's taking the other side when really he's just brushing the issue aside and ignoring it. Immunity issues came from the forum staff itself. It's not happening with the current staff, despite what some people would say. But previously, a certain individual got away with many, many abuses that would have gotten a normal member banned a dozen times over. It looked like immunity. But from what I understand, the rest of the staff felt they simply didn't have the ability to do anything about it. But externally it looked like they were giving this person a free pass. A lot of it comes from perspective, point of view, and desire for witch hunts. One person's disinterest or apathy is seen by someone else as actively helping the opposing side. I know I did my share of it and it's obvious in hindsight now that it didn't help.

He's not really ignoring it. Already explained above. Ultimately, over time he certainly plans to me even more hands off than he's been already, but it's all good.

Right now our biggest problem is people bringing personal grudges into our affairs. And when someone they have a personal grudge against doesn't get punished, then favoritism and immunity are accused even though that's not what happened. Historically people here have a very, very difficult time separating personal grudges from cooperating, getting along, and trying to discuss an issue openly and civilly.

I'm going to ignore much of the rest of your post because you can be extremely wordy at times. May want to work on cutting that back a bit - you take several paragraphs to explain something takes but a few sentences. You were this way and have been this way maybe always. Just know that if people read text walls, they expect new information rather than the same thing repeated 12 ways. Just helping you improve your ability to get your point across concisely here. More people will listen when you do that.

That being said, personal grudges, favoritsm, etc - who cares anymore. It works both ways. Matt, you need to let the past go and they need to let the past go. It's easier said than done, but the easiest way is when it's brought up - you should personally ignore it. When you start replying it only adds fuel to their points or it makes them dislike you more. Just ignore that stuff and focus on talking about games, zelda, life, etc. The more you ignore when people do this, the less and less there is to complain about.

I would just like to remind everyone of this.

Also, thank you very much, Nate, for at least probing into this further. Regardless of if anyone believe this is an actual issue or not, I feel that this is a good conversation to have. In fact, in many ways I think we all should have had this conversation sooner. This has been an issue that has cropped up in previous administrations, and it would be a shame for ZD and ZI to go through the merger... just to be hampered by something like this again in the future. This isn't, nor has it ever been, a question of if the staff is bad, nor does this have to do with anything else besides wanting to have fair treatment for all members of this community. It doesn't matter if you are a forum admin, moderator, wiki admin, site staff, what have you, no one should be above the rules.

Again, thank you all for the good work so far.

Obviously this merger is a unique thing. But, I certainly plan ot work with Jimmy and the rest to make sure it's equal treatment for all. The fact so many respect the current team is always a great start.

 

[Guest_1]

Here's the thing when it comes to rules—when there is ambiguity in the rules, that does leave the door open for abuse. This doesn't mean that the rules need to be black and white, or that there shouldn't be room for interpretation. It's that certain behaviors that have been allowed to carry on by certain members shouldn't be allowed to happen. I understand that we cannot make rules against someone being an asshole. Being an asshole isn't a crime. It's when "being an asshole" is taken to the next level and discussions are poisoned because members can't agree to disagree, or feel that they have to do everything in their power to "win" an argument at the expense of the other parties involved. Whether that abuse is intentional or not doesn't really matter, it's a loophole that needs to be closed going forward.

If the staff would be willing to take a long, hard look at the rules and remove some of the ambiguity that is currently there, I think that would be a step in the right direction for everyone involved.

Thank you very much for your transparency on this issue.

 

[Jamie]

I've always operated under the impression that if there's a user that regularly straddles the line and is universally seen as a poison, they are banned. I mean, sometimes you have to just use common sense. Look at JJ, everyone knows his ban was a long time coming. He didn't post pornography or something, he was just a toxic user who brought down the quality of the board.

 

[Guest_1]

I've always operated under the impression that if there's a user that regularly straddles the line and is universally seen as a poison, they are banned. I mean, sometimes you have to just use common sense. Look at JJ, everyone knows his ban was a long time coming. He didn't post pornography or something, he was just a toxic user who brought down the quality of the board.

There is no questioning that. I would go as far as saying that it should have come sooner, but what's done is done. That chapter has long since come and gone.

The problem we have, then, is when we have a similar user straddling that line, but is also in a staff position. What should we do about those users? Should we continue to let them operate in a gray area and drive off potential users from the community with their toxic arguments? Should we let them continue to derail threads and spread resentment to the rest of the community, and therefore poison the well further? What is the fair course of action in that particular instance?

JJ, while an example of someone who was indeed a toxic member of the community, never held a staff position, and rightly so. While others saw him as a troublemaker, the thing we forget about reputations is that reputations are things of our own creation. Through his own behavior, he ultimately earned the reputation and the resentment he received from the rest of the community. Sure, it could be argued that at some points, there was a degree of bias from both staff and members regarding him, but that doesn't excuse his actions at all, nor should it excuse anyone else. This is especially true for those who are in staff positions.

Staff members of all kinds carry the reputation of the community on their shoulders. When they are allowed to engage in behavior that hurts the reputation of ZD and therefore its brand, then we have a problem. We should treat everybody fairly, but we also cannot allow members to operate in a gray area any longer. It's fine if a member wants to be a contrarian. No one is out to silence opinions or censor beliefs. It's when these opinions or beliefs cannot be expressed in a way that is conducive to a proper, productive discussion that we have problems.

 

[Stitch]

I think that banning someone for the sole reason that other people don't like their behavior is rather unfair and doesn't stop people from behaving in that way in the future. I think it would be much more productive and fair if we look at our rules and decide to change something in them about that behavior if said behavior is having a negative effect on the community. This way nobody gets banned without breaking any rules and the person gets a fair chance to change their behavior knowing what the consequences are, plus it would be set that anybody else that behaves that way in the future would know that their behavior would have consequences.

 

[Guest_1]

I think that banning someone for the sole reason that other people don't like their behavior is rather unfair and doesn't stop people from behaving in that way in the future. I think it would be much more productive and fair if we look at our rules and decide to change something in them about that behavior if said behavior is having a negative effect on the community. This way nobody gets banned without breaking any rules and the person gets a fair chance to change their behavior knowing what the consequences are, plus it would be set that anybody else that behaves that way in the future would know that their behavior would have consequences.

I do admit, that's one part of JJ's ban that I never agreed with. Granted, he was given far too many chances to begin with, but from what I understand, he was not banned because he actually broke the rules- he was banned because the staff got fed up with his behavior. While it is a shame that played out, I don't wish to dwell on the subject of JJ. Instead, as PatCat stated, it would be far more productive to re-evaluate the rules and see what loopholes need to be filled. It shouldn't be anyone's goal to ban a particular member, but rather to correct their behavior; if they refuse to do so, then what transpires afterwards is no one else's fault but whatever member is in question. Bans should only be given out as a last resort, when all other measures of addressing their behavior have been exhausted.

I would rather someone get an infraction for something they knowingly earned than banned because they disagreed with the community consensus. That isn't how communities should work. Our goal shouldn't be to drive out people we don't like, but rather to invite and allow members to participate while being held accountable for their actions. If they choose not to follow the community guidelines, then they will naturally weed themselves out with their own behavior. While we all love freedom of speech, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

 

[Emma]

Had a ZI management meeting today that had some forum chatter. Nothing new to really share or report beyond the typical wait and see approach that is going on now (basically, merge is a month away or so, nothing imminent). However, he did admit that he understands where the sentiment for "immunity" comes from. He openly admitted (and likely would to anyone who asks) that he told forum staff not to ban people. He's not exactly hiding that fact, but he did say it wasn't that people couldn't be banned, but there weren't any rules against toxic behavior, so at the heart of it the banning wouldn't be based on rule violations. It's something that he seems to be movable on in adjusting the future of the community long haul, but he always erred on the side of don't ban someone unless they broke rules that call for banning.

So basically, he did tell staff not to ban specific people, but only on grounds they didn't actually break any specific rule that's a bannable offense. Publicly, this obviously looks like favoritism and immunity. It's not really what it is, but it's easily perceived that way when some staff want to ban and Mases says no.

Just filling you and everyone else in. Mases knows where that rep comes from and he understands it because he was blocking bans, but did so with a bit of logic behind it. Mases has openly admitted he's not the greatest of communicators - which sucks of course when your at the top. But that's sort of why he has Jimmy here, myself at ZI, etc. That way he can sort of talk through us where we can deliver the messages he wants in a better way at times.

So yes, he's blocked bans, but it wasn't exactly immunity.

He's not really ignoring it. Already explained above. Ultimately, over time he certainly plans to me even more hands off than he's been already, but it's all good.

I might be repeating the ignoring it thing too much. But important to point out how he never wants to get involved. The times he did tell me he said no to a ban, he never, ever gave the implication that someone was too important. He always said something along the lines that the evidence wasn't compelling enough and that he wasn't interested in a weak case. Given how we've had a string of corrupt staff members actively abusing their position trying to get rid of people they simply didn't like or felt threatened by, outwardly it'd could have looked like Mases was giving special protection, when really that's not what was going on.

I'm going to ignore much of the rest of your post because you can be extremely wordy at times. May want to work on cutting that back a bit - you take several paragraphs to explain something takes but a few sentences. You were this way and have been this way maybe always. Just know that if people read text walls, they expect new information rather than the same thing repeated 12 ways. Just helping you improve your ability to get your point across concisely here. More people will listen when you do that.

I'm afraid that comes from people stubbornly refusing to even listen to a word I said in the first place. Very, very often I have to repeat a point because someone else repeats something else I had already refuted before several times, so I have to again. They just keep going on. And then, as usual, I'm singled out as the repetitive one. Even though I'm not really doing anything that extraordinary. It's only natural people try to repeat a point subconsciously to drive it home when it's obvious people never listened the FIRST TIME before it was repeated.

That being said, personal grudges, favoritsm, etc - who cares anymore. It works both ways. Matt, you need to let the past go and they need to let the past go. It's easier said than done, but the easiest way is when it's brought up - you should personally ignore it. When you start replying it only adds fuel to their points or it makes them dislike you more. Just ignore that stuff and focus on talking about games, zelda, life, etc. The more you ignore when people do this, the less and less there is to complain about.

Easier said than done. You can't forget a past that keeps chasing you and people won't leave it alone. You can't simple ignore slander when, before you respond, people are nodding their head along in agreement with the ridiculousness being spewed. Everyone ought to have the right to defend themselves when someone else is issuing personal attacks. Particularly when the staff chooses to not intervene, all while they go after me for a non-issue that wasn't even hurting anyone. By all means, go after someone for "derailing a thread" (even though it was entirely on topic and nothing of the sort), all while just not even bothering to consider the very obvious personal attacks going on here that are far more serious. It just comes across as more than hypocritical. And incredibly ironic considering this topic is about treating people fairly when that's not happening. I get attacked and.... HOW DARE I DEFEND MYSELF?! I should have known that's not permitted. Silly me. C'mon, lets not be naive. A "wiki admin" has been referred to as a serious offender here. That's sure not Locke or Mases. If this thread is about treating people fairly, I feel I've got the right to protest these character assassinations. Maybe, just maybe I could actually, you know, be of help, if I was included in this thread as an equal, discussing the issues and concerns as part of the group rather than as a subject of what the "problem" is. Just a hypothesis on my part. Oh, and it'd help seriously if people actually acknowledged I actually said something and discussed what I said, so I don't have to repeat myself. Of those that even replied to me only Nathan has shown the slightest ounce of respect towards me in any of these threads. I get frustrated when I'm ignored, who doesn't? I've been around this community for eight years, deeply involved for five. wiki admin for four. I am not some stranger who has no idea what's going on. I'm not asking for special treatment. Just you know, the same amount of respect anyone else would get by default and treatment as an equal rather than as a dangerous tumor that must be excised. These callous assumptions about me cause most of our problems with me in the first place. People assume the worst about me, treat me poorly, I react as any human being would, I get blamed for the whole affair, original person assumes they were correct even though they instigated it.

I'm reasonably certain I didn't repeat too much there. Oh, and side note, to everyone, "too long, didn't read" isn't an excuse you can use to make your argument right. It just undermines your own position, making it clear you are unwilling to listen to other points of view. Had to spell that out.

 

[Jamie]

@Matt Notice how he only tells people not to ban those who are important. He would never stand in the way if it were someone else. I wonder, does he want the forums to be autonomous or not? He seems to only step in when it's convenient for him. My opinion: either be the head admin or don't bother with the forums. You can't half ass it.

 

[Jamie]

I think that banning someone for the sole reason that other people don't like their behavior is rather unfair and doesn't stop people from behaving in that way in the future. I think it would be much more productive and fair if we look at our rules and decide to change something in them about that behavior if said behavior is having a negative effect on the community. This way nobody gets banned without breaking any rules and the person gets a fair chance to change their behavior knowing what the consequences are, plus it would be set that anybody else that behaves that way in the future would know that their behavior would have consequences.

While I may be in the minority here, I disagree that it is unfair. All toxic behaviour straddles the line to begin with, and furthermore, should we really sacrifice 90% of the user bases happiness in place of some artificial "fairness"? ZD is a private company. If someone is lowering the quality of the website, do we need some specific rule? For some users, such as Ventus, JJ, SQ, Lexy, Gic, etc, they are so toxic that there was no reason to keep them on the site to begin with. Forum usership is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Jamie]

I do admit, that's one part of JJ's ban that I never agreed with. Granted, he was given far too many chances to begin with, but from what I understand, he was not banned because he actually broke the rules- he was banned because the staff got fed up with his behavior. While it is a shame that played out, I don't wish to dwell on the subject of JJ. Instead, as PatCat stated, it would be far more productive to re-evaluate the rules and see what loopholes need to be filled. It shouldn't be anyone's goal to ban a particular member, but rather to correct their behavior; if they refuse to do so, then what transpires afterwards is no one else's fault but whatever member is in question. Bans should only be given out as a last resort, when all other measures of addressing their behavior have been exhausted.

I would rather someone get an infraction for something they knowingly earned than banned because they disagreed with the community consensus. That isn't how communities should work. Our goal shouldn't be to drive out people we don't like, but rather to invite and allow members to participate while being held accountable for their actions. If they choose not to follow the community guidelines, then they will naturally weed themselves out with their own behavior. While we all love freedom of speech, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Actually, JJ was ultimately banned for a comment he said to me in the SB. Toxic users are exactly what I just said: line straddlers. JJ got more informal warnings than I could count. Eventually enough warnings adds up to "enough is enough, you have not warned nor will you ever".

 

[Emma]

@Matt Notice how he only tells people not to ban those who are important. He would never stand in the way if it were someone else. I wonder, does he want the forums to be autonomous or not? He seems to only step in when it's convenient for him. My opinion: either be the head admin or don't bother with the forums. You can't half ass it.

Wait, I forgot you in my last post. You've been respectful to me here. I'm sorry I forgot.

And about that... think about it from his perspective. He doesn't really pay too much attention to the forum, there's no way around that. And the forum staff, in all its iterations, never even bother consulting him about anyone who isn't important. Why would they? They know he won't care and that he wouldn't make a fuss about them no matter what they did to them. They only focus on bringing to his attention important people. So naturally it makes sense he'd make the point to say what he thinks so he doesn't have to be bothered. And through all the nonsense, the general meaning usually is "don't bother me with this unless you have very good evidence worth considering." And, sorry, but face it, throughout its history and various incarnations, the forum staff has generally been disrespectful of other parts of the site, typically assuming the worst in people from it that bother to speak their minds. So it's not surprising people draw the conclusion that important people are being protected when really the core problem is bad communication.

as for only stepping in when it's convenient.... well doesn't everyone do that? We all have what is important to us. What Mases has always cared most about generally has been two things, his walkthroughs and his marathons that he essentially spends all year planning. And he's good at them. He doesn't like being divided seventeen different ways. Who does? Some departmentalization and degree of autonomy in certain parts of the network are necessary. He generally leaves the wiki up to me and Locke, though mostly me since Locke's been busy with his job. And he generally leaves the forum to itself. There should be some interconnectivity though. And various departments should have every right to voice their concerns in another since we're all supposed to be supporting each other.

 

[DARK MASTER]

do we need some specific rule?

Wouldn't that be better than potentially opening up a can of watermelons? Just add a rule and fix the problem — makes things more clear and consistent.

Spoiler: watermelons...

 

[Jamie]

Wouldn't that be better than potentially opening up a can of watermelons? Just add a rule and fix the problem — makes things more clear and consistent.

Spoiler: watermelons...

How about this?

2:01 AM - Jamie:

Honestly to stop all of this jj back and forth I wouldn't mind something in the rules that basically says "if after many attempts, a user shows a lack of improvement or a lack of effort in improving, a permanent ban may be in order" something or other