(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

[Jamie]

I have a couple things to add after having read Matt and Vergos posts.

Firstly, Matt makes a great point about Kitsu. Kitsu is perpetuated as some sort of evil person out to destroy ZD. It's a little ridiculous because I believe there is a fair case to be made that Kitsu has worked to improve ZD more than anyone else, he just has a unique way of doing it. He created ZD Green because he wanted to improve the site, and he offers his insightful criticism based on years of experience; something many people lack. Perhaps he goes a little too far, but using him as a scapegoat, in a 1984-esque "face of evil" sort of way, is not doing the moderation team any justice. Having a common enemy is not going to improve the behavior of anybody.

I will say however that I believe the mods are far from corrupt. I believe, just like any other human being, the mods are slightly misguided at times and make mistakes. It is whether or not they are able to push aside their egos and correct their mistakes that makes them good mods, and I have seen a lot of improvement in this area as of late.

Also, Vergo, you are as good a mod as anybody. Keep it up.

 

[Emma]

I really do appreciate the conversation, guys. It's both informative and helpful, and I'll keep it in mind in the future. I hope I've done a good job of at least explaining my initial actions, and if you guys read in to it, I hope you can come to understand it. Rules have been put in place as a result of it, and I'll more than likely revert to the warning as a result of it. I did already have a response to Dracomajora and Batman typed up, but if anyone else has specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them tomorrow.

Really it should serve as an example not to take infractions lightly in the future. They should always be a last resort for members who are actually causing a real problem. Not that simply are annoying you or anything like that. And certainly not for rules that are not explicitly defined. The ignorance defense of course doesn't work when you do have the rule specified, but it is a perfectly valid defense if you never told them at all. If that's the standard of conduct, then mods could just make anything they don't like into a unwritten rule that has been broken.

But the two factors do still remain, the fact that Kitsu was penalized heavily for having the admin user bar along with utilizing the exploit for other means. Even in one infraction statement, one of the prime reasons was the Kitsu has posed as a mod and sent out fake infractions. Pancake more likely than not knows this, as he was present during the entire original ordeal, and, if I remember correctly, actually informed me of the fake infractions that were sent out via members like JuicieJ.

You of course didn't see my previous post before putting this up. So I won't restate it here. But in addition to what I had just said in the last post, I'll just add that posing as a moderator is not against the rules. Should it be? Maybe. But the fact is that it wasn't and the point I've been making here is that you shouldn't be infracting for something not explicitly against the rules. Being so concerned about acting like a mod... seems more like a concern about authority being defied than anything else. And honestly those fake infractions should have been real ones by real moderators and I'm sure you know that.

I can also point you to the enlightening conversation I had with Batman above concerning how I approach the warning vs infraction dynamic and how this combined with everything I outlined above, led to my initial action of pairing the Mellow/Pancake infractions together. I've even stated multiple times that I'm more than willing to downgrade it to a warning, but not Mellow's, now that we've had such a good conversation that I fear we would have normally never had.

Both must be downgraded because it wasn't a real rule at the time. Not doing so is only going to come off as corruption.

I would like to think I've already adequately explained my thought process at the time concerning why I originally didn't default to the warning option. If you're asking me to post a thread or an announcement, I've also attempted to convey the fact that it's not exactly within my power at this time to assign rules based on what I personally think would be good amendments or additions to them. It should also be noted that Mellow has also mentioned that he's unsatisfied with the amount of time that it took for me to act on his infraction, which leads me to believe that others get upset without prompt responses to actions. I brought the issue up in the form of communication I have with the rest of the staff, and have unfortunately not been able to get a response from a majority of other participants.

Then you shouldn't have infracted for a rule that doesn't exist that you don't think you can make on your own.

It should be duly noted then, I suppose. Although that does little for me in the way of attempting to explain why exactly I did what I did, as I attempt to explain that it wasn’t my “corrupt” nature that prompted me to do so. If you feel that our dynamic, or how I’ve interpreted it to be up to this point, is philosophically flawed, I’ll definitely keep that in mind when I decide in the future which option to default to when making decisions. But when we have to use words such as “relatively minor”, it calls into question the types of rules that we’re even willing to enforce (or even create) in the first place, and whether or not special exceptions should be made when we deem a certain offense “minor” in its nature. This leaves so much open to interpretation, which inevitably creates a conflict of interest when we have so many different people moderating around the forum. If you feel my thought process when originally determining this warning vs infraction nature was unjust, I truly do apologize for it, and I’ll keep your words at heart the next time I have to make a decision like this. But other factors were involved in this decision, factors which I’ve already outlined when it pertains to how I handled Mellow’s infraction, and how I thought Pancake’s should interact with it. Regardless, all things considered, I’ll most definitely keep this concern in mind henceforth.

You can do something corrupt while still thinking it's the right thing. A leader who never questions himself is a bad leader. Most corrupt authority figures become that way because they do what they think is necessary, and one thing leads to another and before they know it, they're doing horrible things in the name of order. It happens time and again. Whenever you gain power, you have to stay vigilant against that kind of thing. I'm gonna geek out for a bit and say: With great power, comes great responsibility.

This is strange, as I’ve heard so many horror stories pertaining to mod action in the past, especially when it came to LegendOfZelda and how your actions were handled. Matt has told me during several occasions that he believes your reason for being banned was unjust, so I can only assume from what I’ve heard that the eventual infraction you received was unjust as well, although I know no details. Of course, I can’t speak for these mods, as I quite literally don’t know any of them which have already retired. I’ve heard many others say, both in the staff circle and out, that mod action these days is far scaled back from what it used to be. I would hope that many among us think that this is a positive thing, and that we’re at least handling this just a little bit better now in a way.

For the record, a certain former moderator was bullying people, abusing his position, handing out infractions and punishments against people who disagreed with him in threads, or that had questioned his authority. And LegendofZelda did question his authority and confronted him on abusing his powers. That's what got him the ban. I'm sure this former mod will be furious I said so. And deny it angerly. But what happened was undeniable and I think most everyone here knows it and has seen proof. This needs to be said. Actions like this should not be tolerated ever again. Mods need to be held accountable for their actions to make sure they do not abuse their authority.

I certainly feel that the dialogue led to something full of substance, and I even stated, as early as my first response, that I was more than willing to entertain the nothing that coupling Mellow’s and Pancake’s respective infractions was not something that worked out the way I intended it to. Although I do still hope that you among other people can understand my line of thought, or dare I say, respect it, in my attempt to not ignore the situation, but to be completely transparent with you when it comes to my reasoning and thoughts for doing this. It’s my greatest fear that, if this had been swept under the rug, and this “wrong” action have never taken place, that it would have failed to set in motions that would lead to far worse grievances in the future. I understand why many would not think this is worth it, but with everything else considered that I had attempted to analysis and put into place with the original pair of actions, I still believe this was most certainly a healthy conversation to have, and an experience that I’m happy to have gone through. It’s my attempt to be the best moderator I can be, and if there are bumps in the way, I’ll just have to accept that.

Dialogues like this are the best way to improve things. Everyone has to be open and honest. For the best results and for the greatest stability and improvement, people shouldn't cover up what they've observed for fear of offending. You're ultimately doing the other party harm in serious issues like this if you hold back criticisms when they are doing something wrong.

 

[CynicalSquid]

I'll elaborate more because that seemed a little harsh

Common sense seems really subjective to me. Even though someone didn't specifically tell you not to do something doesn't mean you have the the thought process to not do anything "obviously" bad. You say, Locke didn't tell me not to but I really shouldn't, while others might say, Locke didn't tell me not to so why not?

Do you think they should just be revoked of their privileges immediately because they made a mistake? I don't think so. I believe they should be given a warning first and then revoked of their privileges if they disobey. The same principle applies here.

I'm sorry about that last post. I wasn't trying to attack staff, I just wanted to show that not everyone is perfect.

 

[Jamie]

As I stated previously, Matt, Ezlo keeping the ranks for a while caused issues that aren't directly related to abuse. Kind of like if you had an offensive user title. I see why Vergo wants to keep the infraction.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

Both must be downgraded because it wasn't a real rule at the time. Not doing so is only going to come off as corruption.

I disagree. Pancake, yes. However, according to my PM, I was infracted for "Inappropriate User Profile", which was entirely justified if you had seen what my profile was. I accept that particular infraction.

 

[Emma]

As I stated previously, Matt, Ezlo keeping the ranks for a while caused issues that aren't directly related to abuse. Kind of like if you had an offensive user title. I see why Vergo wants to keep the infraction.

I had read that and it didn't change what I said. It was not a rule. And no matter how questionable anyone thinks that action was, it's really improper to infract for something that was never explicitly forbidden. Even if everyone agrees that it probably should be forbidden, infracting first before making it a rule sets a horribly bad precedent that can, and has throughout history in other forums and in real world societies, be used to justify saying that someone who is... inconvenient, is doing something wrong with a rule that the person just made up to get that person. Said former mod I just mentioned, did exactly this. And we don't need this precedent now. You honestly can never know who will become corrupted. Maybe a current mod will, maybe a future one will. It has happened before, it undeniably will happen again. It should be a priority to make sure it never is permitted again. Vigilance against this kind of thing can help stop a person from slipping into this mindset. Power is alluring, corrupting. If you stop it from getting to you, you never fall down this road. Denying that power has this corrupting influence on everyone is the same as begging it to take you.


Long post short, it doesn't matter if it should be wrong, or if it is now. It was not at the time, and it'd be bad for our future to keep infractions that happened before a rule was formalized as it can and will be abused.

I disagree. Pancake, yes. However, according to my PM, I was infracted for "Inappropriate User Profile", which was entirely justified if you had seen what my profile was. I accept that particular infraction.

You're probably not aware, and Vergo probably isn't either. But in the past when moderators wanted to infract something that was not against the defined rules and didn't fit the existing infraction categories, they'd use "Inappropriate User Profile" as the reason even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the profile. Vergo's statements here have said it wasn't about the profile in your case either. It's why I didn't consider it valid. Even if you feel it was applicable to your profile, it doesn't apply if that was not the reason used. We'd have to get clarification.

But while we're on that can of worms, we really should not have that infraction category, period. Anything that is really worth infracting on a user profile, is covered under other existing categories. Just having a bad design, should never be worth an infraction. So in either case I'm against the infraction. Unless it's category was changed to something more fitting, if it even applies. If not, then just a complete removal.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

I'm leaving this here as a reference, for those who don't seem to think my infraction was justified.

Dear Mellow Ezlo,

You have received an infraction at Dungeon Gaming Network.

Reason: Inappropriate User Profile (2nd Degree)
-------
Hey there, I got some screenshots of the custom banners you had, along with the profile customizations you had before taking them down. Although we've been lax with the custom userbars exploit, using every single banner, especially site official ones, is something we want to avoid. The profile customizations speak for themselves, and I don't really understand your reasoning for it.


If you have any questions, feel free to reply.

-Vergo
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. If you feel you have received this in error or unjustly, please report this PM and present your case to be reviewed by the moderation team.

All the best,
Dungeon Gaming Network

 

[Justac00lguy]

Was this really worth an infraction?

A) I never done anything like this before. Yes, I did abuse it to some extent, but I only did it for a minute to screen shot them and take it off so it didn't become a problem.
What I did didn't seem serious enough for an infraction. Yes, I mimicked banners used on the site, and used an excessive amount of them, but I just did it for fun. I wasn't promoting the abuse of the exploit, and it was a mistake on my part. A warning could have done the same. Why did you immediately need to jump to infraction?
C) The only proof was the screen shots. I could have easily photoshopped it, or messed with the HTML and gotten the same results. The fact that I didn't was because using the exploit for a second just seemed easier.

Why am I making a big deal about a 3 point rank? I have 13 points right now, and because infractions have a stupidly long wait until they expire, if I sneeze the wrong way before the end of November I'll get banned.

I guess the only fair reason is that Kitsu was shunned by multiple members for this very same thing, so there's got to be some sort of consistency here. Meh, I don't think it's that bad, but I guess that's the reason why.

Anyway, there should have been some rule about this and now, that it has been brought to attention, maybe make people clear on what they can and can't do with the exploit just so it avoids future scenarios like this.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Really it should serve as an example not to take infractions lightly in the future. They should always be a last resort for members who are actually causing a real problem. Not that simply are annoying you or anything like that. And certainly not for rules that are not explicitly defined. The ignorance defense of course doesn't work when you do have the rule specified, but it is a perfectly valid defense if you never told them at all. If that's the standard of conduct, then mods could just make anything they don't like into a unwritten rule that has been broken.

I do think that my initial action concerning the first offense, Mellow Ezlo’s was handled appropriately. I like Mellow as a person, he’s a funny guy and a good mafia player, so I wasn’t excessively “annoyed” or anything like it that resulted in the infraction in and of itself. I need to encourage people now, especially in hindsight, to not evaluate this in a vacuum without at least attempting to understand the reasoning that I went with the same option for the second complaint in the first place. I would grant you every single word of this had I just out of the blue done this solely to Pancake, but as I’ve stated multiple, multiple times throughout these responses so far, there were very specific reasons for my doing so in this scenario. As I’ve also mentioned several times, I had reason to believe that one of these incidents was done in a somewhat malicious manner, and in an attempt to prove to be “fair” to this person, I followed up the infraction with another one similar. Although for the last bit, I do have to question the validity of a mod now just making rules out of the blue when he or she feels like it, with next to no input for other staff members. If I had known I could make such a unilateral action on my own, and had I known it would be considered viable and permanent by the majority of users, I definitely would have done that. But you can see where this gets disturbing, when a mod creates his or her own rules on a whim because he or she feels like it’s a good idea.

This was one thing that always stuck out to me, and that, to me, says mods shouldn’t create new rules out of the blue when they think it would merely be a good addition/amendment based on their own personal convictions. With this in mind, and on top of everything else I discussed pertaining to Mellow’s infraction and how I received the complaint at the same time as Pancake’s means that this is why I defaulted to the infraction in the first place. We’re free to discuss the merits of whether or not something like that should exist I suppose, but I strongly encourage people not to make the assumption that I was just in a grumpy mood and decided to handle this as I originally did.

You of course didn't see my previous post before putting this up. So I won't restate it here. But in addition to what I had just said in the last post, I'll just add that posing as a moderator is not against the rules. Should it be? Maybe. But the fact is that it wasn't and the point I've been making here is that you shouldn't be infracting for something not explicitly against the rules. Being so concerned about acting like a mod... seems more like a concern about authority being defied than anything else. And honestly those fake infractions should have been real ones by real moderators and I'm sure you know that.

I don’t think I can convince you of this otherwise, although I do personally believe that dressing as a moderator and sending out fake infractions to users you don’t like is something that we shouldn’t allow. I don’t suppose we have a specific rule against flooding the front page with images and gifs due to the exploit, but again, I feel as if this is something that people should know not to do. I don’t want to use “common sense” as it’s a stupid and subjective phrase, and you could very well just disagree with this notion entirely. Being concerned about this kind of thing, to me anyway, does not reflect off myself as being “wounded” when others pose as it, but rather a more practical reason – when users start receiving fake infractions from staff members that don’t exist, they do start to complain about why we’re allowing the masquerade to happen. If you think that’s harmless, I suppose I can respect that, and I would hope that you don’t think my entire reason for doing this was because my own ego was somehow bruised through every single rank being included on top of profile offenses. And I’m sure you know that I’m one of the biggest proponents of infracting a certain user, as we’ve discussed many times, and that I alone was responsible for his latest ban back in May due to another PPQ infraction he received. I don’t know if this in and of itself can help support my notion that I try to remain impartial to people, but I do hope you can see where I’m coming from with this kind of thing.

Both must be downgraded because it wasn't a real rule at the time. Not doing so is only going to come off as corruption.

Again, I have to ask every person interested in this case to please, please not view this in a single-minded vacuum that I logged on, got my feelings hurt somehow, and infracted someone because of it, as this is simply not the case and wasn’t my motivation at all. If I had done that, I would have fully acknowledged to you all I made a mistake, and would have fixed it right away. I don’t completely understand why every mod action that isn’t fully understood must automatically be corruption, but as I have respect for you as both a person and Zelda online community member, I suppose all I can do, as I attempted to do long ago when you first contacted me, is attempt to assure you that my reasoning at the time was valid with the information I presented to me, and the offenses that I viewed. I’ve also said all along that I will mostly likely revert the infraction, but that this entire exercise is my attempt to you, the members, to remain transparent in my line of thought and explain to you all every detail of the process I went through. I could very well have paid this thread no mind, and when about my own business – but this is my honest attempt to all of you to avoid what I’ve hated about mods in the past, and actually, you know, communicate.

Then you shouldn't have infracted for a rule that doesn't exist that you don't think you can make on your own.

This point was mainly about the lose-lose that’s presented with either quick decision making, or unilateral action to change the rules on my part. I do believe there would be outrage if mods decided on their own to create their own rules that were then set in stone from there on just according to their own personal beliefs. This kind of system justifies endless rule-making on a single individual’s part, which is something we definitely want to avoid. But again, I have to encourage you to at least try to understand my line of thought when also handing the infraction to Pancake in the wake of Mellow’s. I’ve said so many times already, but when I viewed such a similar case via the complaints I received, my best course of action to avoid the dreaded “bias” hole (which has now admittedly been the true motive the entire time, ironically) by using similar infractions to users I had reason to believe already knew better. I do know that you support an even laxer rule enforcement policy than we have currently, and I truly do respect your position on it, but in return I would ask you to realize why that certain decision was made the way it was due to other concerns about selective enforcement and “bias” that have been presented to me on almost a constant basis every time any form of discipline is sent out.

You can do something corrupt while still thinking it's the right thing. A leader who never questions himself is a bad leader. Most corrupt authority figures become that way because they do what they think is necessary, and one thing leads to another and before they know it, they're doing horrible things in the name of order. It happens time and again. Whenever you gain power, you have to stay vigilant against that kind of thing. I'm gonna geek out for a bit and say: With great power, comes great responsibility.

As I said to Batman, we should duly note any type of objections that people have to what I guess we’re calling “conventions of the forum” now, coupled with the current rules we have. But I would ask you to understand that the action took was specifically made in the context of what I already had to work with – I do have to enforce rules currently regardless if many question the validity behind them, and if that’s seen as “corrupt”, I might just want to resign because I don’t want to start selectively enforcing rules that I believe in versus rules I don’t believe in, as this once again feeds right back into what Mellow was attempting to prove, that we selectively enforce and are quite biased in favor of other members. I thought this was the most impartial way to approach this situation, in an attempt to avoid the trap that apparently many of my predecessors have made. If you think this is fundamentally flawed, I don’t have much in the way of responding other than that I’m sorry, and I hope we get a better set of rules in the future concerning this.

Dialogues like this are the best way to improve things. Everyone has to be open and honest. For the best results and for the greatest stability and improvement, people shouldn't cover up what they've observed for fear of offending. You're ultimately doing the other party harm in serious issues like this if you hold back criticisms when they are doing something wrong.

Which is why I’ve whole-heartedly supported this conversation, and have hopefully said enough to convince to many people that this is not my being “corrupt”, but this is my attempt to remain as impartial as possible, and to attempt to at least somewhat remedy the notion that even I, personally, selectively enforce rules and am biased in the favor of my forum friends such as Pancake. I honestly don’t know if my words will be read, let along taken to heart, but this is quite honestly my best attempt at remaining transparent to you all, and addressing as many of your concerns spread out across several users as possible.

Two things that pissed me off more than anything about this forum's mods years ago was their lack of communication and activity, and how their decision making was seen as a sacred-cow. It has been my greatest wish from the beginning to differentiate myself from the mods I used to despise, and I hope my willingness to talk like this has made some strides towards proving that.

 

[Ronin]

You're probably not aware, and Vergo probably isn't either. But in the past when moderators wanted to infract something that was not against the defined rules and didn't fit the existing infraction categories, they'd use "Inappropriate User Profile" as the reason even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the profile. Vergo's statements here have said it wasn't about the profile in your case either. It's why I didn't consider it valid. Even if you feel it was applicable to your profile, it doesn't apply if that was not the reason used. We'd have to get clarification.

It doesn't seem that you're conscious of this, Matt, but Mellow had more against him than the overreaching usage of the exploit. His profile itself had an image of a sloth with the standard meme-text that read [paraphrased], "Arse is itchy." The infraction for "Inappropriate User Profile" did not encompass the userbanners alone, but the fact that Mezlo had an inappropriate image visible on the forefront his background (it was in the Visitor Message modules, if memory serves right). The userbanner thing is being so heavily debated right now that somewhere down the line it became the source of attention; but Mellow's PM briefly mentions the background violation, which he has since removed.

Pancake's "offense" did not include a inappropriate profile customizations, so his infraction could be downgraded to a warning. That's the difference of the breach in the rules and how they were dealt with.

 

[Vanessa28]

Vergo reversed the infraction of Cakepan. I want to point out that even though it was a joke people should be aware that using banners of the offical staff can lead to some confusion or abuse. Suppose member X joins and faces a problem. No other mod or admin is online and member X spots a user with the userbar Admin and asks questions about their account. Suppose a user is taking advantage of it and asks for personal information. It can lead to abuse. Not saying it will happen but it is possible. And yes maybe Locke or Thar could write down what to use and what not. Because no rule is written yet so people do have a point when they say "Hey there is no rule which says we can't use an offical rank bar." Even though it is pretty obvious not to do it there is still no written rule about it.

 

[Emma]

Although for the last bit, I do have to question the validity of a mod now just making rules out of the blue when he or she feels like it, with next to no input for other staff members. If I had known I could make such a unilateral action on my own, and had I known it would be considered viable and permanent by the majority of users, I definitely would have done that. But you can see where this gets disturbing, when a mod creates his or her own rules on a whim because he or she feels like it’s a good idea.

Like I said, this is how tyrants are born. They start small, one thing here, one thing there, it builds, and while they think they're doing the right thing, they turn into a monster. It's the curse of power. If you fail to respect it, fail to acknowledge this danger, it will take hold of you and corrupt your personality as it has done to people beyond count for all of human history. The only way to be safe from this threat is to acknowledge the danger and remain vigilant against it, listening to people when they say you went too far instead of just casually dismissing them. Not that you have, but all the other mods before you who have done something questionable, or were speaking of another who did something questionable, did exactly that.

I don’t think I can convince you of this otherwise, although I do personally believe that dressing as a moderator and sending out fake infractions to users you don’t like is something that we shouldn’t allow. I don’t suppose we have a specific rule against flooding the front page with images and gifs due to the exploit, but again, I feel as if this is something that people should know not to do. I don’t want to use “common sense” as it’s a stupid and subjective phrase, and you could very well just disagree with this notion entirely. Being concerned about this kind of thing, to me anyway, does not reflect off myself as being “wounded” when others pose as it, but rather a more practical reason – when users start receiving fake infractions from staff members that don’t exist, they do start to complain about why we’re allowing the masquerade to happen. If you think that’s harmless, I suppose I can respect that, and I would hope that you don’t think my entire reason for doing this was because my own ego was somehow bruised through every single rank being included on top of profile offenses. And I’m sure you know that I’m one of the biggest proponents of infracting a certain user, as we’ve discussed many times, and that I alone was responsible for his latest ban back in May due to another PPQ infraction he received. I don’t know if this in and of itself can help support my notion that I try to remain impartial to people, but I do hope you can see where I’m coming from with this kind of thing.

Again this is focusing on demonizing and exaggeratting what he did, which again, excessively focuses on usupering the moderator role, and leaves out that those infractions should have been very real from a real mod. And yes, I know you think there should be for one. But... there's never more than a wrist slap. Kitsu got a very long ban for just this. It was also in reponse to moderators censoring content. This is something that they did for a long time. And that most still refuse to admit they were even doing. They just say they were upholding the rules. When they were actually supporting bullies and attacking the victims of those bullies. The people who scream out the most "I'm offended" are usually the ones who are actually being verbally abusive and attacking people. Yet never a single thing is done to them. And their targets get attacked by the mods for "being too offensive." A lot. This greatly upset Kitsu. It wasn't the smartest reaction. But it wasn't this great act of evil you and the other mods make it out to be. That's the point. He's constantly used as an example of what a bad user looks like. When he's only ever tried to help the place. He lashed out when the mods were being BLATANTLY AND HUGELY CORRUPT. Constant denial that has happened makes you just as guilty as those acts even if you didn't personally take part of them because you are in effect covering up for them and supporting what was done. You are much more open about your disapproval of what has been done. But you still undersell it when it comes to Kitsu. Other mods, they know who they are, completely deny the mods have done anything wrong in these situations.

Again, I have to ask every person interested in this case to please, please not view this in a single-minded vacuum that I logged on, got my feelings hurt somehow, and infracted someone because of it, as this is simply not the case and wasn’t my motivation at all. If I had done that, I would have fully acknowledged to you all I made a mistake, and would have fixed it right away. I don’t completely understand why every mod action that isn’t fully understood must automatically be corruption, but as I have respect for you as both a person and Zelda online community member, I suppose all I can do, as I attempted to do long ago when you first contacted me, is attempt to assure you that my reasoning at the time was valid with the information I presented to me, and the offenses that I viewed. I’ve also said all along that I will mostly likely revert the infraction, but that this entire exercise is my attempt to you, the members, to remain transparent in my line of thought and explain to you all every detail of the process I went through. I could very well have paid this thread no mind, and when about my own business – but this is my honest attempt to all of you to avoid what I’ve hated about mods in the past, and actually, you know, communicate.

I suppose I should have clarified that I wasn't necessarily saying that you thought it was an ego thing for mocking the moderators. What I meant was that is what it looks like. And people can see that. Being so harsh on people doing that kind of thing, especially so innocently like this, only makes that assumption look correct in people's eyes.

Even if you decide to reverse it, that doesn't change the importance of stressing how wrong this was. No matter how justified you felt in doing it, it was not a rule that was expressly defined so it was not fair or ethical to infract on it. It's very important to stress that because you disapprove of mod corruption as much as me and that kind of thing was very badly abused by a few mods in the past and it's very important to stress that it's not okay to do this kind of thing in the future.

This point was mainly about the lose-lose that’s presented with either quick decision making, or unilateral action to change the rules on my part. I do believe there would be outrage if mods decided on their own to create their own rules that were then set in stone from there on just according to their own personal beliefs. This kind of system justifies endless rule-making on a single individual’s part, which is something we definitely want to avoid. But again, I have to encourage you to at least try to understand my line of thought when also handing the infraction to Pancake in the wake of Mellow’s. I’ve said so many times already, but when I viewed such a similar case via the complaints I received, my best course of action to avoid the dreaded “bias” hole (which has now admittedly been the true motive the entire time, ironically) by using similar infractions to users I had reason to believe already knew better. I do know that you support an even laxer rule enforcement policy than we have currently, and I truly do respect your position on it, but in return I would ask you to realize why that certain decision was made the way it was due to other concerns about selective enforcement and “bias” that have been presented to me on almost a constant basis every time any form of discipline is sent out.

Simply sending a PM, not even a warning, just a PM, saying to the effect: "You've had your laugh now, but could you please remove the ranked banners now so it does not give people the wrong idea, thanks." instead. That would have stopped it, and you wouldn't have to have had this whole ordeal. Really we should question the ethics of just laying down punishments when someone is not really being malicious or really doing anything wrong. If a harmless joke is something you don't like, don't treat people like criminals for doing it. Or if someone reacts less than perfectly in protest against actions that the moderators have taken, don't judge them too harshly or take away the context that blurs the right and wrong aspect of what you're talking about. The morality lines on stealing something, for example, are blurred when the person is in a very bad way and stole food so they wouldn't starve to death. We're not Fox News and we shouldn't exaggerate how bad someone is when the reality was not that. A less than ideal-protest against harmful and corrupt (because that's what it was) actions shouldn't be exaggerated and villianized like this.

As I said to Batman, we should duly note any type of objections that people have to what I guess we’re calling “conventions of the forum” now, coupled with the current rules we have. But I would ask you to understand that the action took was specifically made in the context of what I already had to work with – I do have to enforce rules currently regardless if many question the validity behind them, and if that’s seen as “corrupt”, I might just want to resign because I don’t want to start selectively enforcing rules that I believe in versus rules I don’t believe in, as this once again feeds right back into what Mellow was attempting to prove, that we selectively enforce and are quite biased in favor of other members. I thought this was the most impartial way to approach this situation, in an attempt to avoid the trap that apparently many of my predecessors have made. If you think this is fundamentally flawed, I don’t have much in the way of responding other than that I’m sorry, and I hope we get a better set of rules in the future concerning this.

In trying not to be biased, you were biased. It is exactly like affirmative action. In an effort to not be unfair to one person, you were extremely unfair to another. This is a problem on the forums in general. Certain people exploit the pity of the moderators, and then they make victims out of innocent people who have done no wrong, and then the moderators feel like they were just doing the right thing and didn't do anything wrong, when they were actually extremely harmful and were in fact propping up the bullies. Whenever you focus too much on helping one group, to the exclusion of others, people will exploit it. You leave a window for exploitation open, some people will use it. Compassion for all means that you need to look to the concerns of everyone and look at things from more perspectives than just one. From their perspective, being targetted by bullies, punished for things that they either did not do or things that were not even what the bullies claimed, and then the bullies just get away with it, is extremely traumatizing. You really should not be shocked that that damages people and could cause extreme reactions. No matter how wrong you think that reaction is, the blame ultimately lies with those who pushed them over the edge. You do not help things when you pile more blame onto the victims. It emboldens the bullies and encourages them to do it more because they know if they torment their targets enough, their targets will take all the blame and they'll get away with it themselves.

And I would argue that regardless of your position, it's your moral and ethical duty to oppose rules that are unfair. If there's a rule that you're supposed to enforce that you think is wrong, argue against it. Passive acceptance makes you complicit, and accomplice to the wrong-doing. You should know that the "just following orders" excuse doesn't apply. People do have their own free will. The ethical way to handle things in any authority structure is to oppose anything unethical regardless of what your responsibilities are. If you get removed from a position because of it, then those who removed you undermine their own position and highlight and stress how wrong what was being opposed is. Authority does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to the criticism of those under it. This is why the tyrant's worst enemy is almost always one of their own subjects that gets the courage to stand up to them after one too many wrong-doings.

Two things that pissed me off more than anything about this forum's mods years ago was their lack of communication and activity, and how their decision making was seen as a sacred-cow. It has been my greatest wish from the beginning to differentiate myself from the mods I used to despise, and I hope my willingness to talk like this has made some strides towards proving that.

Then stop treating their decisions, their rules, as a sacred, unchangable cow. Stand up when something is wrong instead of saying "I have no choice but to enforce it."


I'll leave it with this:

[ilquote=Elie Wiesel]I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.[/ilquote]

 

[Ronin]

Vergo reversed the infraction of Cakepan. I want to point out that even though it was a joke people should be aware that using banners of the offical staff can lead to some confusion or abuse. Suppose member X joins and faces a problem. No other mod or admin is online and member X spots a user with the userbar Admin and asks questions about their account. Suppose a user is taking advantage of it and asks for personal information. It can lead to abuse. Not saying it will happen but it is possible. And yes maybe Locke or Thar could write down what to use and what not. Because no rule is written yet so people do have a point when they say "Hey there is no rule which says we can't use an offical rank bar." Even though it is pretty obvious not to do it there is still no written rule about it.

In a way, Garo has already compiled a list of official user ranks, which should not be emulated into custom userbanners as they were. This thread shows the user ranks up-to-date that are not allowed to be mimicked through the exploit. Really, anything other than this would be fine for a custom userbanner, provided it's appropriate and courteous. That said, I'm in no way against members creating their own userbanners because they can act as a secondary usertitle of sorts. I'd be interested in having one myself if I knew how to perform the CSS editing required for the exploit, but nobody has prepared a public explanation for it yet.

 

[Emma]

It doesn't seem that you're conscious of this, Matt, but Mellow had more against him than the overreaching usage of the exploit. His profile itself had an image of a sloth with the standard meme-text that read [paraphrased], "Arse is itchy." The infraction for "Inappropriate User Profile" did not encompass the userbanners alone, but the fact that Mezlo had an inappropriate image visible on the forefront his background (it was in the Visitor Message modules, if memory serves right). The userbanner thing is being so heavily debated right now that somewhere down the line it became the source of attention; but Mellow's PM briefly mentions the background violation, which he has since removed.

I'm not seeing how that is s problem. And I don't see how if you think it is a problem, that other infraction categories can't cover it. There's no use for "Inappropriate User Profile" because the only things unique to a profile that you can't violate somewhere else, really isn't a problem. Having a bad design shouldn't be an infraction. Anything that is legitmately wrong already has other categories.

Vergo reversed the infraction of Cakepan. I want to point out that even though it was a joke people should be aware that using banners of the offical staff can lead to some confusion or abuse. Suppose member X joins and faces a problem. No other mod or admin is online and member X spots a user with the userbar Admin and asks questions about their account. Suppose a user is taking advantage of it and asks for personal information. It can lead to abuse. Not saying it will happen but it is possible. And yes maybe Locke or Thar could write down what to use and what not. Because no rule is written yet so people do have a point when they say "Hey there is no rule which says we can't use an offical rank bar." Even though it is pretty obvious not to do it there is still no written rule about it.

It doesn't matter how much everyone agrees that it should be a wrong. The fact is that it was not a rule and it should not have been punished so harshly and without warning before it was a rule. It sets a horribly bad precedent that could be later abused. No matter how justified you feel it is, this kind of thing has been horribly abused before and the last thing we need is encouraging more of it.

 

[Fig]

Ok I have read the gist of all of these responses and quite frankly it really, everyone should have known that by it is considered abuse to use create a fake rank that mocks a user or user group for that matter. I would like to point out that GaroXicon did create an updated thread of the members in those user groups.

I would also like to acknowledge that Pancake left a like at the OP and latest post in that thread and before me as well. I say this because I know for a fact that I liked those posts as well on the day that the post was created. This proves that Pancake has voluntarily acknowledged himself to know that such a list of user group were established before this incident. Since his infraction is reversed by now I can't say anything about it, but I will say this: If you are fully aware of something or you acknowledged something yourself, then you should know the consequences should you go over the line. A warning should really be given out to people that didn't know the first time around.

Take for example competitive Smash (yea I know I am probably one of three people that know this example but please bare with me). In major tournaments there are huge consequences for splitting prize money within the event that the tournament took place. A well-known Smasher known as Mew2King (M2K for short) was first given a warning taking part of a split winnings back in 2005-09.

In response to some of these splitting controversies, Mew2King has stated that he was in a poor mood during the tournament sets, or that he agreed to split because splitting was extremely common at the time, and believed that splitting money was considered being a nice person (he states that he did not know about MLG's rule that splitting was illegal).

M2K was later banned from MLG in 2010 after an incident had occurred with him receiving a compensate $500 after he lost to Smasher ADHD in Loser's Finals and for conspiring to manipulating the Rankings and Brackets. What I am saying here is that M2K didn't knew at the time that splitting the winnings from a tournament within the event was against the rules. This is why he was banned from MLG when he partook of the same incident back in 2010 and while he is now able to play again at MLG as of now, people are either his friend or against him when he has been a part of several controversies. He was fully acknowledged of the consequences and still pertained to do so. This can go back to the latest incident with Pancake, especially since he knew there was a list of user groups before hand.

Then stop treating their decisions, their rules, as a sacred, unchangable cow. Stand up when something is wrong instead of saying "I have no choice but to enforce it."

Interesting how you are saying that to Vergo here yet when Sir Quaffler stated he was simply enforcing the rules, people were against him for doing so. Considering that Vee did stated in another thread that what Sir Quaffler did was justifiable and since no doesn't seem to have a problem with Vee, I do believe that what Sir Quaffler did was justified.